Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Lefebvre, Tanneguy" to "Letronne, Jean Antoine" (part 3)

Leo XIII. (Gioacchino Pecci) (1810-1903), pope from 1878 to 1903, reckoned the 257th successor of St Peter, was born at Carpineto on the 2nd of March 1810. His family was Sienese in origin, and his father, Colonel Domenico Pecci, had served in the army of Napoleon. His mother, Anna Prosperi, is said to have been a descendant of Rienzi, and was a member of the third order of St Francis. He and his elder brother Giuseppe (known as Cardinal Pecci) received their earliest education from the Jesuits at Viterbo, and completed their education in Rome. In the jubilee year 1825 he was selected by his fellow-students at the Collegium Romanum to head a deputation to Pope Leo XII., whose memory he subsequently cherished and whose name he assumed in 1878. Weak health, consequent on over-study, prevented him from obtaining the highest academical honours, but he graduated as doctor in theology at the age of twenty-two, and then entered the Accademia dei Nobili ecclesiastici, a college in which clergy of aristocratic birth are trained for the diplomatic service of the Roman Church. Two years later Gregory XVI. appointed him a domestic prelate, and bestowed on him, by way of apprenticeship, various minor administrative offices. He was ordained priest on the 31st of December 1837, and a few weeks later was made apostolic delegate of the small papal territory of Benevento, where he had to deal with brigands and smugglers, who enjoyed the protection of some of the noble families of the district. His success here led to his appointment in 1841 as delegate of Perugia, which was at that time a centre of anti-papal secret societies. This post he held for eighteen months only, but in that brief period he obtained a reputation as a social and municipal reformer. In 1843 he was sent as nuncio to Brussels, being first consecrated a bishop (19th February), with the title of archbishop of Damietta. During his three years’ residence at the Belgian capital he found ample scope for his gifts as a diplomatist in the education controversy then raging, and as mediator between the Jesuits and the Catholic university of Louvain. He gained the esteem of Leopold I., and was presented to Queen Victoria of England and the Prince Consort. He also made the acquaintance of many Englishmen, Archbishop Whately among them. In January 1846, at the request of the magistrates and people of Perugia, he was appointed bishop of that city with the rank of archbishop; but before returning to Italy he spent February in London, and March and April in Paris. On his arrival in Rome he would, at the request of King Leopold, have been created cardinal but for the death of Gregory XVI. Seven years later, 19th December 1853, he received the red hat from Pius IX. Meanwhile, and throughout his long episcopate of thirty-two years, he foreshadowed the zeal and the enlightened policy later to be displayed in the prolonged period of his pontificate, building and restoring many churches, striving to elevate the intellectual as well as the spiritual tone of his clergy, and showing in his pastoral letters an unusual regard for learning and for social reform. His position in Italy was similar to that of Bishop Dupanloup in France; and, as but a moderate supporter of the policy enunciated in the Syllabus, he was not altogether persona grata to Pius IX. But he protested energetically against the loss of the pope’s temporal power in 1870, against the confiscation of the property of the religious orders, and against the law of civil marriage established by the Italian government, and he refused to welcome Victor Emmanuel in his diocese. Nevertheless, he remained in the comparative obscurity of his episcopal see until the death of Cardinal Antonelli; but in 1877, when the important papal office of camerlengo became vacant, Pius IX. appointed to it Cardinal Pecci, who thus returned to reside in Rome, with the prospect of having shortly responsible functions to perform during the vacancy of the Holy See, though the camerlengo was traditionally regarded as disqualified by his office from succeeding to the papal throne.

When Pius IX. died (7th February 1878) Cardinal Pecci was elected pope at the subsequent conclave with comparative unanimity, obtaining at the third scrutiny (20th February) forty-four out of sixty-one votes, or more than the requisite two-thirds majority. The conclave was remarkably free from political influences, the attention of Europe being at the time engrossed by the presence of a Russian army at the gates of Constantinople. It was said that the long pontificate of Pius IX. led some of the cardinals to vote for Pecci, since his age (within a few days of sixty-eight) and health warranted the expectation that his reign would be comparatively brief; but he had for years been known as one of the few “papable” cardinals; and although his long seclusion at Perugia had caused his name to be little known outside Italy, there was a general belief that the conclave had selected a man who was a prudent statesman as well as a devout churchman; and Newman (whom he created a cardinal in the year following) is reported to have said, “In the successor of Pius I recognize a depth of thought, a tenderness of heart, a winning simplicity, and a power answering to the name of Leo, which prevent me from lamenting that Pius is no longer here.”

The second day after his election Pope Leo XIII. crossed the Tiber incognito to his former residence in the Falconieri Palace to collect his papers, returning at once to the Vatican, where he continued to regard himself as “imprisoned” so long as the Italian government occupied the city of Rome. He was crowned in the Sistine Chapel 3rd March 1878, and at once began a reform of the papal household on austere and economic lines which found little favour with the entourage of the former pope. To fill posts near his own person he summoned certain of the Perugian clergy who had been trained under his own eye, and from the first he was less accessible than his predecessor had been, either in public or private audience. Externally uneventful as his life henceforth necessarily was, it was marked chiefly by the reception of distinguished personages and of numerous pilgrimages, often on a large scale, from all parts of the world, and by the issue of encyclical letters. The stricter theological training of the Roman Catholic clergy throughout the world on the lines laid down by St Thomas Aquinas was his first care, and to this end he founded in Rome and endowed an academy bearing the great schoolman’s name, further devoting about £12,000 to the publication of a new and splendid edition of his works, the idea being that on this basis the later teaching of Catholic theologians and many of the speculations of modern thinkers could best be harmonized and brought into line. The study of Church history was next encouraged, and in August 1883 the pope addressed a letter to Cardinals de Luca, Pitra and Hergenröther, in which he made the remarkable concession that the Vatican archives and library might be placed at the disposal of persons qualified to compile manuals of history. His belief was that the Church would not suffer by the publication of documents. A man of literary taste and culture, familiar with the classics, a facile writer of Latin verses as well as of Ciceronian prose, he was as anxious that the Roman clergy should unite human science and literature with their theological studies as that the laity should be educated in the principles of religion; and to this end he established in Rome a kind of voluntary school board, with members both lay and clerical; and the rivalry of the schools thus founded ultimately obliged the state to include religious teaching in its curriculum. The numerous encyclicals by which the pontificate of Leo XIII. will always be distinguished were prepared and written by himself, but were submitted to the customary revision. The encyclical Aeterni Patris (4th August 1879) was written in the defence of the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas. In later ones, working on the principle that the Christian Church should superintend and direct every form of civil life, he dealt with the Christian constitution of states (Immortale Dei, 1st November 1885), with human liberty (Libertas, 20th June 1888), and with the condition of the working classes (Rerum novarum, 15th May 1891). This last was slightly tinged with modern socialism; it was described as “the social Magna Carta of Catholicism,” and it won for Leo the name of “the working-man’s pope.” Translated into the chief modern languages, many thousands of copies were circulated among the working classes in Catholic countries. Other encyclicals, such as those on Christian marriage (Arcanum divinae sapientiae, 10th February 1880), on the Rosary (Supremi apostolatus officii, 1st September 1883, and Superiore anno, 5th September 1898), and on Freemasonry (Humanum genus, 20th April 1884), dealt with subjects on which his predecessor had been accustomed to pronounce allocutions, and were on similar lines. It was the knowledge that in all points of religious faith and practice Leo XIII. stood precisely where Pius IX. had stood that served to render ineffectual others of his encyclicals, in which he dealt earnestly and effectively with matters in which orthodox Protestants had a sympathetic interest with him and might otherwise have lent an ear to his counsels. Such were the letters on the study of Holy Scripture (18th November 1893), and on the reunion of Christendom (20th June 1894). He showed special anxiety for the return of England to the Roman Catholic fold, and addressed a letter ad Anglos, dated 14th April 1895. This he followed up by an encyclical on the unity of the Church (Satis cognitum, 29th June 1896); and the question of the validity of Anglican ordinations from the Roman Catholic point of view having been raised in Rome by Viscount Halifax, with whom the abbé Louis Duchesne and one or two other French priests were in sympathy, a commission was appointed to consider the subject, and on the 15th of September 1896 a condemnation of the Anglican form as theologically insufficient was issued, and was directed to be taken as final.

The establishment of a diocesan hierarchy in Scotland had been decided upon before the death of Pius IX., but the actual announcement of it was made by Leo XIII. On the 25th of July 1898 he addressed to the Scottish Catholic bishops a letter, in the course of which he said that “many of the Scottish people who do not agree with us in faith sincerely love the name of Christ and strive to ascertain His doctrine and to imitate His most holy example.” The Irish and American bishops he summoned to Rome to confer with him on the subjects of Home Rule and of “Americanism” respectively. In India he established a diocesan hierarchy, with seven archbishoprics, the archbishop of Goa taking precedence with the rank of patriarch.

With the government of Italy his general policy was to be as conciliatory as was consistent with his oath as pope never to surrender the “patrimony of St Peter”; but a moderate attitude was rendered difficult by partisans on either side in the press, each of whom claimed to represent his views. In 1879, addressing a congress of Catholic journalists in Rome, he exhorted them to uphold the necessity of the temporal power, and to proclaim to the world that the affairs of Italy would never prosper until it was restored; in 1887 he found it necessary to deprecate the violence with which this doctrine was advocated in certain journals. A similar counsel of moderation was given to the Canadian press in connexion with the Manitoba school question in December 1897. The less conciliatory attitude towards the Italian government was resumed in an encyclical addressed to the Italian clergy (5th August 1898), in which he insisted on the duty of Italian Catholics to abstain from political life while the papacy remained in its “painful, precarious and intolerable position.” And in January 1902, reversing the policy which had its inception in the encyclical, Rerum novarum, of 1891, and had further been developed ten years later in a letter to the Italian bishops entitled Graves de communi, the “Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs” issued instructions concerning “Christian Democracy in Italy,” directing that the popular Christian movement, which embraced in its programme a number of social reforms, such as factory laws for children, old-age pensions, a minimum wage in agricultural industries, an eight-hours’ day, the revival of trade gilds, and the encouragement of Sunday rest, should divert its attention from all such things as savoured of novelty and devote its energies to the restoration of the temporal power. The reactionary policy thus indicated gave the impression that a similar aim underlay the appointment about the same date of a commission to inquire into Biblical studies; and in other minor matters Leo XIII. disappointed those who had looked to him for certain reforms in the devotional system of the Church. A revision of the breviary, which would have involved the omission of some of the less credible legends, came to nothing, while the recitation of the office in honour of the Santa Casa at Loreto was imposed on all the clergy. The worship of Mary, largely developed during the reign of Pius IX., received further stimulus from Leo; nor did he do anything during his pontificate to correct the superstitions connected with popular beliefs concerning relics and indulgences.

His policy towards all governments outside Italy was to support them wherever they represented social order; and it was with difficulty that he persuaded French Catholics to be united in defence of the republic. The German Kulturkampf was ended by his exertions. In 1885 he successfully arbitrated between Germany and Spain in a dispute concerning the Caroline Islands. In Ireland he condemned the “Plan of Campaign” in 1888, but he conciliated the Nationalists by appointing Dr Walsh archbishop of Dublin. His hope that his support of the British government in Ireland would be followed by the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the court of St James’s and the Vatican was disappointed. But the jubilee of Queen Victoria in 1887 and the pope’s priestly jubilee a few months later were the occasion of friendly intercourse between Rome and Windsor, Mgr. Ruffo Scilla coming to London as special papal envoy, and the duke of Norfolk being received at the Vatican as the bearer of the congratulations of the queen of England. Similar courtesies were exchanged during the jubilee of 1897, and again in March 1902, when Edward VII. sent the earl of Denbigh to Rome to congratulate Leo XIII. on reaching his ninety-third year and the twenty-fifth year of his pontificate. The visit of Edward VII. to Leo XIII. in April 1903 was a further proof of the friendliness between the English court and the Vatican.

The elevation of Newman to the college of Cardinals in 1879 was regarded with approval throughout the English-speaking world, both on Newman’s account and also as evidence that Leo XIII. had a wider horizon than his predecessor; and his similar recognition of two of the most distinguished “inopportunist” members of the Vatican council, Haynald, archbishop of Kalocsa, and Prince Fürstenberg, archbishop of Olmütz, was even more noteworthy. Dupanloup would doubtless have received the same honour had he not died shortly after Leo’s accession. Döllinger the pope attempted to reconcile, but failed. He laboured much to bring about the reunion of the Oriental Churches with the see of Rome, establishing Catholic educational centres in Athens and in Constantinople with that end in view. He used his influence with the emperor of Russia, as also with the emperors of China and Japan and with the shah of Persia, to secure the free practice of their religion for Roman Catholics within their respective dominions. Among the canonizations and beatifications of his pontificate that of Sir Thomas More, author of Utopia, is memorable. His encyclical issued at Easter 1902, and described by himself as a kind of will, was mainly a reiteration of earlier condemnations of the Reformation, and of modern philosophical systems, which for their atheism and materialism he makes responsible for all existing moral and political disorders. Society, he earnestly pleaded, can only find salvation by a return to Christianity and to the fold of the Roman Catholic Church.

Grave and serious in manner, speaking slowly, but with energetic gestures, simple and abstemious in his life—his daily bill of fare being reckoned as hardly costing a couple of francs—Leo XIII. distributed large sums in charity, and at his own charges placed costly astronomical instruments in the Vatican observatory, providing also accommodation and endowment for a staff of officials. He always showed the greatest interest in science and in literature, and he would have taken a position as a statesman of the first rank had he held office in any secular government. He may be reckoned the most illustrious pope since Benedict XIV., and under him the papacy acquired a prestige unknown since the middle ages. On the 3rd of March 1903 he celebrated his jubilee in St Peter’s with more than usual pomp and splendour; he died on the 20th of July following. His successor was Pius X.

See Scelta di atti episcopali del cardinale G. Pecci ... (Rome, 1879); Leonis XIII. Pont. Max. acta (17 vols., Rome, 1881-1898); Sanctissimi Domini N. Leonis XIII. allocutiones, epistolae, &c. (Bruges and Lille, 1887, &c.); the encyclicals (Sämtliche Rundschreiben) with a German translation (6 vols., Freiburg, 1878-1904); Discorsi del Sommo Pontefice Leone XIII. 1878-1882 (Rome, 1882). There are lives of Leo XIII. by B. O’Reilly (new ed., Chicago, 1903), H. des Houx (pseudonym of Durand Morimbeau) (Paris, 1900), by W. Meynell (1887), by J. McCarthy (1896), by Boyer d’Agen, (Jeunesse de Léon XIII. (1896); La Prélature, 1900), by M. Spahn (Munich, 1905), by L. K. Goetz (Gotha, 1899), &c. A life of Leo XIII. (4 vols.) was undertaken by F. Marion Crawford, Count Edoardo Soderini and Professor Giuseppe Clementi.

(A. W. Hu.; M. Br.)

Leonis XIII. Pont. Maximi carmina, ed. Brunelli (Udine, 1883); Leonis XIII. carmina, inscriptiones, numismata, ed. J. Bach (Cologne, 1903).

LEO, the name of six emperors of the East.

Leo I., variously surnamed Thrax, Magnus and Makelles, emperor of the East, 457-474, was born in Thrace about 400. From his position as military tribune he was raised to the throne by the soldiery and recognized both by senate and clergy; his coronation by the patriarch of Constantinople is said to have been the earliest instance of such a ceremony. Leo owed his elevation mainly to Aspar, the commander of the guards, who was debarred by his Arianism from becoming emperor in his own person, but hoped to exercise a virtual autocracy through his former steward and dependant. But Leo, following the traditions of his predecessor Marcian, set himself to curtail the domination of the great nobles and repeatedly acted in defiance of Aspar. Thus he vigorously suppressed the Eutychian heresy in Egypt, and by exchanging his Germanic bodyguard for Isaurians removed the chief basis of Aspar’s power. With the help of his generals Anthemius and Anagastus, he repelled invasions of the Huns into Dacia (466 and 468). In 467 Leo had Anthemius elected emperor of the West, and in concert with him equipped an armament of more than 1100 ships and 100,000 men against the pirate empire of the Vandals in Africa. Through the remissness of Leo’s brother-in-law Basiliscus, who commanded the expedition, the fleet was surprised by the Vandal king, Genseric, and half of its vessels sunk or burnt (468). This failure was made a pretext by Leo for killing Aspar as a traitor (471), and Aspar’s murder served the Goths in turn as an excuse for ravaging Thrace up to the walls of the capital. In 473 the emperor associated with himself his infant grandson, Leo II., who, however, survived him by only a few months. His surnames Magnus (Great) and Makelles (butcher) respectively reflect the attitude of the Orthodox and the Arians towards his religious policy.

See E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (ed. Bury, 1896), iv. 29-37; J. B. Bury, The Later Roman Empire (1889), i. 227-233.

Leo III. (c. 680-740), surnamed The Isaurian, emperor of the East, 717-740. Born about 680 in the Syrian province of Commagene, he rose to distinction in the military service, and under Anastasius II. was invested with the command of the eastern army. In 717 he revolted against the usurper Theodosius III. and, marching upon Constantinople, was elected emperor in his stead. The first year of Leo’s reign saw a memorable siege of his capital by the Saracens, who had taken advantage of the civil discord in the Roman empire to bring up a force of 80,000 men to the Bosporus. By his stubborn defence the new ruler wore out the invaders who, after a twelve months’ investment, withdrew their forces. An important factor in the victory of the Romans was their use of Greek fire. Having thus preserved the empire from extinction, Leo proceeded to consolidate its administration, which in the previous years of anarchy had become completely disorganized. He secured its frontiers by inviting Slavonic settlers into the depopulated districts and by restoring the army to efficiency; when the Arabs renewed their invasions in 726 and 739 they were decisively beaten. His civil reforms include the abolition of the system of prepaying taxes which had weighed heavily upon the wealthier proprietors, the elevation of the serfs into a class of free tenants, the remodelling of family and of maritime law. These measures, which were embodied in a new code published in 740, met with some opposition on the part of the nobles and higher clergy. But Leo’s most striking legislative reforms dealt with religious matters. After an apparently successful attempt to enforce the baptism of all Jews and Montanists in his realm (722), he issued a series of edicts against the worship of images (726-729). This prohibition of a custom which had undoubtedly given rise to grave abuses seems to have been inspired by a genuine desire to improve public morality, and received the support of the official aristocracy and a section of the clergy. But a majority of the theologians and all the monks opposed these measures with uncompromising hostility, and in the western parts of the empire the people refused to obey the edict. A revolt which broke out in Greece, mainly on religious grounds, was crushed by the imperial fleet (727), and two years later, by deposing the patriarch of Constantinople, Leo suppressed the overt opposition of the capital. In Italy the defiant attitude of Popes Gregory II. and III. on behalf of image-worship led to a fierce quarrel with the emperor. The former summoned councils in Rome to anathematize and excommunicate the image-breakers (730, 732); Leo retaliated by transferring southern Italy and Greece from the papal diocese to that of the patriarch. The struggle was accompanied by an armed outbreak in the exarchate of Ravenna (727), which Leo finally endeavoured to subdue by means of a large fleet. But the destruction of the armament by a storm decided the issue against him; his south Italian subjects successfully defied his religious edicts, and the province of Ravenna became detached from the empire. In spite of this partial failure Leo must be reckoned as one of the greatest of the later Roman emperors. By his resolute stand against the Saracens he delivered all eastern Europe from a great danger, and by his thorough-going reforms he not only saved the empire from collapse, but invested it with a stability which enabled it to survive all further shocks for a space of five centuries.

See E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (ed. Bury, 1896), v. 185 seq., 251 seq. and appendices, vi. 6-12; J. B. Bury, The Later Roman Empire (1889), ii. 401-449; K. Schenk, Kaiser Leo III. (Halle, 1880), and in Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1896), v. 257-301; T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders (1892, &c.), bk. vii., chs. 11, 12. See also Iconoclasts.

Leo IV., called Chozar, succeeded his father, Constantine V., as emperor of the East in 775. In 776 he associated his young son, Constantine, with himself in the empire, and suppressed a rising led by his five step-brothers which broke out as a result of this proceeding. Leo was largely under the influence of his wife Irene (q.v.), and when he died in 780 he left her as the guardian of his successor, Constantine VI.

Leo V., surnamed The Armenian, emperor of the East, 813-820, was a distinguished general of Nicephorus I. and Michael I. After rendering good service on behalf of the latter in a war with the Arabs (812), he was summoned in 813 to co-operate in a campaign against the Bulgarians. Taking advantage of the disaffection prevalent among the troops, he left Michael in the lurch at the battle of Adrianople and subsequently led a successful revolution against him. Leo justified his usurpation by repeatedly defeating the Bulgarians who had been contemplating the siege of Constantinople (814-817). By his vigorous measures of repression against the Paulicians and image-worshippers he roused considerable opposition, and after a conspiracy under his friend Michael Psellus had been foiled by the imprisonment of its leader, he was assassinated in the palace chapel on Christmas Eve, 820.

See E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (ed. Bury, 1896), v. 193-195.

(M. O. B. C.)

Leo VI., surnamed The Wise and The Philosopher, Byzantine emperor, 886-911. He was a weak-minded ruler, chiefly occupied with unimportant wars with barbarians and struggles with churchmen. The chief event of his reign was the capture of Thessalonica (904) by Mahommedan pirates (described in The Capture of Thessalonica by John Cameniata) under the renegade Leo of Tripolis. In Sicily and Lower Italy the imperial arms were unsuccessful, and the Bulgarian Symeon, who assumed the title of “Czar of the Bulgarians and autocrat of the Romaei” secured the independence of his church by the establishment of a patriarchate. Leo’s somewhat absurd surname may be explained by the facts that he “was less ignorant than the greater part of his contemporaries in church and state, that his education had been directed by the learned Photius, and that several books of profane and ecclesiastical science were composed by the pen, or in the name, of the imperial philosopher” (Gibbon). His works include seventeen Oracula, in iambic verse, on the destinies of future emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople; thirty-three Orations, chiefly on theological subjects (such as church festivals); Basilica, the completion of the digest of the laws of Justinian, begun by Basil I., the father of Leo; some epigrams in the Greek Anthology; an iambic lament on the melancholy condition of the empire; and some palindromic verses, curiously called καρκίνοι (crabs). The treatise on military tactics, attributed to him, is probably by Leo III., the Isaurian.

Complete edition in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, cvii.; for the literature of individual works see C. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (1897).

(J. H. F.)

LEO, Brother (d. c. 1270), the favourite disciple, secretary and confessor of St Francis of Assisi. The dates of his birth and of his becoming a Franciscan are not known; but he was one of the small group of most trusted companions of the saint during his last years. After Francis’s death Leo took a leading part in the opposition to Elias: he it was who broke in pieces the marble box which Elias had set up for offertories for the completion of the basilica at Assisi. For this Elias had him scourged, and this outrage on St Francis’s dearest disciple consolidated the opposition to Elias and brought about his deposition. Leo was the leader in the early stages of the struggle in the order for the maintenance of St Francis’s ideas on strict poverty, and the chief inspirer of the tradition of the Spirituals on St Francis’s life and teaching. The claim that he wrote the so-called Speculum perfectionis cannot be allowed, but portions of it no doubt go back to him. A little volume of his writings has been published by Lemmeus (Scripta Iratris Leonis, 1901). Leo assisted at St Clara’s death-bed, 1253; after suffering many persecutions from the dominant party in the order he died at the Portiuncula in extreme old age.

All that is known concerning him is collected by Paul Sabatier in the “Introduction” to the Speculum perfectionis (1898). See St Francis and Franciscans.

(E. C. B.)

LEO, HEINRICH (1799-1878), German historian, was born at Rudolstadt on the 19th of March 1799, his father being chaplain to the garrison there. His family, not of Italian origin—as he himself was inclined to believe on the strength of family tradition—but established in Lower Saxony so early as the 16th century, was typical of the German upper middle classes, and this fact, together with the strongly religious atmosphere in which he was brought up and his early enthusiasm for nature, largely determined the bent of his mind. The taste for historical study was, moreover, early instilled into him by the eminent philologist Karl Wilhelm Göttling (1793-1869), who in 1816 became a master at the Rudolstadt gymnasium. From 1816 to 1819 Leo studied at the universities of Breslau, Jena and Göttingen, devoting himself more especially to history, philology and theology. At this time the universities were still agitated by the Liberal and patriotic aspirations aroused by the War of Liberation; at Breslau Leo fell under the influence of Jahn, and joined the political gymnastic association (Turnverein); at Jena he attached himself to the radical wing of the German Burschenschaft, the so-called “Black Band,” under the leadership of Karl Follen. The murder of Kotzebue by Karl Sand, however, shocked him out of his extreme revolutionary views, and from this time he tended, under the influence of the writings of Hamann and Herder, more and more in the direction of conservatism and romanticism, until at last he ended, in a mood almost of pessimism, by attaching himself to the extreme right wing of the forces of reaction. So early as April 1819, at Göttingen, he had fallen under the influence of Karl Ludwig von Haller’s Handbuch der allgemeinen Staatenkunde (1808), a text-book of the counter-Revolution. On the 11th of May 1820 he took his doctor’s degree; in the same year he qualified as Privatdozent at the university of Erlangen. For this latter purpose he had chosen as his thesis the constitution of the free Lombard cities in the middle ages, the province in which he was destined to do most for the scientific study of history. His interest in it was greatly stimulated by a journey to Italy in 1823; in 1824 he returned to the subject, and, as the result, published in five volumes a history of the Italian states (1829-1832). Meanwhile he had been established (1822-1827) as Dozent at Berlin, where he came in contact with the leaders of German thought and was somewhat spoilt by the flattering attentions of the highest Prussian society. Here, too, it was that Hegel’s philosophy of history made a deep impression upon him. It was at Halle, however, where he remained for forty years (1828-1868), that he acquired his fame as an academical teacher. His wonderful power of exposition, aided by a remarkable memory, is attested by the most various witnesses. In 1830 he became ordinary professor.

In addition to his lecturing, Leo found time for much literary and political work. He collaborated in the Jahrbücher für Wissenschaftliche Kritik from its foundation in 1827 until the publication was stopped in 1846. As a critic of independent views he won the approval of Goethe; on the other hand, he fell into violent controversy with Ranke about questions connected with Italian history. Up to the revolutionary year 1830 his religious views had remained strongly tinged with rationalism, Hegel remaining his guide in religion as in practical politics and the treatment of history. It was not till 1838 that Leo’s polemical work Die Hegelingen proclaimed his breach with the radical developments of the philosopher’s later disciples; a breach which developed into opposition to the philosopher himself. Under the impression of the July revolution in Paris and of the orthodox and pietistic influences at Halle, Leo’s political convictions were henceforth dominated by reactionary principles. As a friend of the Prussian “Camarilla” and of King Frederick William IV. he collaborated especially in the high conservative Politisches Wochenblatt, which first appeared in 1831, as well as in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, the Kreuzzeitung and the Volksblatt für Stadt und Land. In all this his critics scented an inclination towards Catholicism; and Leo did actually glorify the counter-Reformation, e.g. in his History of the Netherlands (2 vols. 1832-1835). His other historical works also, notably his Universalgeschichte (6 vols., 1835-1844), display a very one-sided point of view. When, however, in connexion with the quarrel about the archbishopric of Cologne (1837), political Catholicism raised its head menacingly, Leo turned against it with extreme violence in his open letter (1838) to Goerres, its foremost champion. On the other hand, he took a lively part in the politico-religious controversies within the fold of Prussian Protestantism.

Leo was by nature highly excitable and almost insanely passionate, though at the same time strictly honourable, unselfish, and in private intercourse even gentle. During the last year of his life his mind suffered rapid decay, of which signs had been apparent so early as 1868. He died at Halle on the 24th of April 1878. In addition to the works already mentioned, he left behind an account of his early life (Meine Jugendzeit, Gotha, 1880) which is of interest.

See Lord Acton, English Historical Review, i. (1886); H. Haupt, Karl Follen und die Giessener Schwarzen (Giessen, 1907); W. Herbst, Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter, Bd. 3; P. Krägelin, H. Leo, vol. i. (1779-1844) (Leipzig, 1908); P. Kraus, Allgemeine Konservative Monatsschrift, Bd. 50 u. 51; R. M. Meyer, Gestalten und Probleme (1904); W. Schrader, Geschichte der Friedrichs-Universität in Halle (Berlin, 1894); C. Varrentrapp, Historische Zeitschrift, Bd. 92; F. X. Wegele, Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Bd. 18 (1883); Geschichte der deutschen Historiographie (1885); G. Wolf, Einführung in das Studium der neueren Geschichte (1910). Leo’s Rectitudines singularum personarum nebst einer einleitenden Abhandlung über Landsiedelung, Landbau, gutsherrliche und bäuerliche Verhältnisse der Angelsachsen, was translated into English by Lord Acton (1852).

(J. Hn.)

LEO, JOHANNES (c. 1494-1552), in Italian Giovanni Leo or Leone, usually called Leo Africanus, sometimes Eliberitanus (i.e. of Granada), and properly known among the Moors as Al Hassan Ibn Mahommed Al Wezaz Al Fasi, was the author of a Descrizione dell’ Affrica, or Africae descriptio, which long ranked as the best authority on Mahommedan Africa. Born probably at Granada of a noble Moorish stock (his father was a landowner; an uncle of his appears as an envoy from Fez to Timbuktu), he received a great part of his education at Fez, and while still very young began to travel widely in the Barbary States. In 1512 we trace him at Morocco, Tunis, Bugia and Constantine; in 1513 we find him returning from Tunis to Morocco; and before the close of the latter year he seems to have started on his famous Sudan and Sahara journeys (1513-1515) which brought him to Timbuktu, to many other regions of the Great Desert and the Niger basin (Guinea, Melli, Gago, Walata, Aghadez, Wangara, Katsena, &c.), and apparently to Bornu and Lake Chad. In 1516-1517 he travelled to Constantinople, probably visiting Egypt on the way; it is more uncertain when he visited the three Arabias (Deserta, Felix and Petraea), Armenia and “Tartary” (the last term is perhaps satisfied by his stay at Tabriz). His three Egyptian journeys, immediately after the Turkish conquest, all probably fell between 1517 and 1520; on one of these he ascended the Nile from Cairo to Assuan. As he was returning from Egypt about 1520 he was captured by pirates near the island of Gerba, and was ultimately presented as a slave to Leo X. The pope discovered his merit, assigned him a pension, and having persuaded him to profess the Christian faith, stood sponsor at his baptism, and bestowed on him (as Ramusio says) his own names, Johannes and Leo. The new convert, having made himself acquainted with Latin and Italian, taught Arabic (among his pupils was Cardinal Egidio Antonini, bishop of Viterbo); he also wrote books in both the Christian tongues he had acquired. His Description of Africa was first, apparently, written in Arabic, but the primary text now remaining is that of the Italian version, issued by the author at Rome, on the 10th of March 1526, three years after Pope Leo’s death, though originally undertaken at the latter’s suggestion. The Moor seems to have lived on Rome for some time longer, but he returned to Africa some time before his death at Tunis in 1552; according to some, he renounced his Christianity and returned to Islam; but the later part of his career is obscure.

The Descrizione dell’ Affrica in its original Arabic MS. is said to have existed for some time in the library of Vincenzo Pinelli (1535-1601); the Italian text, though issued in 1526, was first printed by Giovanni Battista Ramusio in his Navigationi et Viaggi (vol. i.) of 1550. This was reprinted in 1554, 1563, 1588, &c. In 1556 Jean Temporal executed at Lyons an admirable French version from the Italian (Historiale description de l’Afrique); and in the same year appeared at Antwerp both Christopher Plantin’s and Jean Bellere’s pirated issues of Temporal’s translation, and a new (very inaccurate) Latin version by Joannes Florianus, Joannis Leonis Africani de totius Africae descriptione libri i.-ix. The latter was reprinted in 1558, 1559 (Zürich), and 1632 (Leiden), and served as the basis of John Pory’s Elizabethan English translation, made at the suggestion of Richard Hakluyt (A Geographical Historie of Africa, London, 1600). Pory’s version was reissued, with notes, maps, &c., by Robert Brown, E. G. Ravenstein, &c. (3 vols., Hakluyt Society, London, 1896). An excellent German translation was made by Lorsbach, from the Italian, in 1805 (Johann Leos des Afrikaners Beschreibung von Afrika, Herborn). See also Francis Moore’s Travels into the inland parts of Africa (1738), containing a translation of Leo’s account of negro kingdoms. Heinrich Barth intended to have made a fresh version, with a commentary, but was prevented by death; as it is, his own great works on the Sudan are the best elucidation of the Descrizione dell’ Affrica.

Leo also wrote lives of the Arab physicians and philosophers (De viris quibusdam illustribus apud Arabes; see J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, Hamburg, 1726, xiii. 259-298); a Spanish-Arabic vocabulary, now lost, but noticed by Ramusio as having been consulted by the famous Hebrew physician, Jacob Mantino; a collection of Arabic epitaphs in and near Fez (the MS. of this Leo presented, it is said, to the brother of the king); and poems, also lost. It is stated, moreover, that Leo intended writing a history of the Mahommedan religion, an epitome of Mahommedan chronicles, and an account of his travels in Asia and Egypt.

(C. R. B.)

LEO, LEONARDO (1694-1744), more correctly Lionardo Oronzo Salvatore de Leo, Italian musical composer, was born on the 5th of August 1694 at S. Vito dei Normanni, near Brindisi. He became a student at the Conservatorio della Piètà dei Turchini at Naples in 1703, and was a pupil first of Provenzale and later of Nicola Fago. It has been supposed that he was a pupil of Pitoni and Alessandro Scarlatti, but he could not possibly have studied with either of these composers, although he was undoubtedly influenced by their compositions. His earliest known work was a sacred drama, L’Infedeltà abbattuta, performed by his fellow-students in 1712. In 1714 he produced, at the court theatre, an opera, Pisistrato, which was much admired. He held various posts at the royal chapel, and continued to write for the stage, besides teaching at the conservatorio. After adding comic scenes to Gasparini’s Bajazette in 1722 for performance at Naples, he composed a comic opera, La Mpeca scoperta, in Neapolitan dialect, in 1723. His most famous comic opera was Amor vuol sofferenze (1739), better known as La Finta Frascatana, highly praised by Des Brosses. He was equally distinguished as a composer of serious opera, Demofoonte (1735), Farnace (1737) and L’Olimpiade (1737) being his most famous works in this branch, and is still better known as a composer of sacred music. He died of apoplexy on the 31st of October 1744 while engaged in the composition of new airs for a revival of La Finta Frascatana.

Leo was the first of the Neapolitan school to obtain a complete mastery over modern harmonic counterpoint. His sacred music is masterly and dignified, logical rather than passionate, and free from the sentimentality which disfigures the work of F. Durante and G. B. Pergolesi. His serious operas suffer from a coldness and severity of style, but in his comic operas he shows a keen sense of humour. His ensemble movements are spirited, but never worked up to a strong climax.

A fine and characteristic example of his sacred music is the Dixit Dominus in C, edited by C. V. Stanford and published by Novello. A number of songs from operas are accessible in modern editions.

(E. J. D.)

LEO (The Lion), in astronomy, the fifth sign of the zodiac (q.v.), denoted by the symbol Ω. It is also a constellation, mentioned by Eudoxus (4th century B.C.) and Aratus (3rd century B.C.). According to Greek mythology this constellation is the Nemean lion, which, after being killed by Hercules, was raised to the heavens by Jupiter in honour of Hercules. A part of Ptolemy’s Leo is now known as Coma Berenices (q.v.). α Leonis, also known as Cor Leonis or the Lion’s Heart, Regulus, Basilicus, &c., is a very bright star of magnitude 1.23, and parallax 0.02″, and proper motion 0.27″ per annum. γ Leonis is a very fine orange-yellow binary star, of magnitudes 2 and 4, and period 400 years. ι Leonis is a binary, composed of a 4th magnitude pale yellow star, and a 7th magnitude blue star. The Leonids are a meteoric swarm, appearing in November and radiating from this constellation (see Meteor).

LEOBEN, a town in Styria, Austria, 44 m. N.W. of Graz by rail. Pop. (1900) 10,204. It is situated on the Mur, and part of its old walls and towers still remain. It has a well-known academy of mining and a number of technical schools. Its extensive iron-works and trade in iron are a consequence of its position on the verge of the important lignite deposits of Upper Styria and in the neighbourhood of the iron mines and furnaces of Vordernberg and Eisenerz. On the 18th of April 1797 a preliminary peace was concluded here between Austria and France, which led to the treaty of Campo-Formio.

LEOBSCHÜTZ (Bohemian Lubczyce), a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia, on the Zinna, about 20 m. to the N.W. of Ratibor by rail. Pop. (1905) 12,700. It has a large trade in wool, flax and grain, its markets for these commodities being very numerously attended. The principal industries are malting, carriage-building, wool-spinning and glass-making. The town contains three Roman Catholic churches, a Protestant church, a synagogue, a new town-hall and a gymnasium. Leobschütz existed in the 10th century, and from 1524 to 1623 was the capital of the principality of Jägerndorf.

See F. Troska, Geschichte der Stadt Leobschütz (Leobschütz, 1892).

LEOCHARES, a Greek sculptor who worked with Scopas on the Mausoleum about 350 B.C. He executed statues of the family of Philip of Macedon, in gold and ivory, which were set up by that king in the Philippeum at Olympia. He also with Lysippus made a group in bronze at Delphi representing a lion-hunt of Alexander. Of this the base with an inscription was recently found. We hear of other statues by Leochares of Zeus, Apollo and Ares. The statuette in the Vatican, representing Ganymede being carried away by an eagle, though considerably restored and poor in execution, so closely corresponds with Pliny’s description of a group by Leochares that we are justified in considering it a copy of that group, especially as the Vatican statue shows all the characteristics of Attic 4th-century art. Pliny (N.H. 34. 79) writes: “Leochares made a group of an eagle aware whom it is carrying off in Ganymede and to whom it is bearing him; holding the boy delicately in its claws, with his garment between.” (For engraving see Greek Art, Plate I. fig. 53.) The tree stem is skilfully used as a support; and the upward strain of the group is ably rendered. The close likeness both in head and pose between the Ganymede and the well-known Apollo Belvidere has caused some modern archaeologists to assign the latter also to Leochares. With somewhat more confidence we may regard the fine statue of Alexander the Great at Munich as a copy of his gold and ivory portrait at Olympia.

(P. G.)

LEOFRIC (d. 1057), earl of Mercia, was a son of Leofwine, earl of Mercia, and became earl at some date previous to 1032. Henceforth, being one of the three great earls of the realm, he took a leading part in public affairs. On the death of King Canute in 1035 he supported the claim of his son Harold to the throne against that of Hardicanute; and during the quarrel between Edward the Confessor and Earl Godwine in 1051 he played the part of a mediator. Through his efforts civil war was averted, and in accordance with his advice the settlement of the dispute was referred to the Witan. When he became earl of Mercia his direct rule seems to have been confined to Cheshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire and the borders of north Wales, but afterwards he extended the area of his earldom. As Chester was his principal residence and the seat of his government, he is sometimes called earl of Chester. Leofric died at Bromley in Staffordshire on the 31st of August 1057. His wife was Godgifu, famous in legend as Lady Godiva. Both husband and wife were noted as liberal benefactors to the church, among their foundations being the famous Benedictine monastery at Coventry. Leofric’s son, Ælfgar, succeeded him as earl of Mercia.

See E. A. Freeman, The Norman Conquest, vols. i. and ii. (1877).

LEOMINSTER, a market-town and municipal borough in the Leominster parliamentary division of Herefordshire, England, in a rich agricultural country on the Lugg, 157 m. W.N.W. of London and 12½ N. of Hereford on the Great Western and London & North-Western railways. Pop. (1901) 5826. Area, 8728 acres. Some fine old timber houses lend picturesqueness to the wide streets. The parish church, of mixed architecture, including the Norman nave of the old priory church, and containing some of the most beautiful examples of window tracery in England, was restored in 1866, and enlarged by the addition of a south nave in 1879. The Butter Cross, a beautiful example of timber work of the date 1633, was removed when the town-hall was building, and re-erected in the pleasure ground of the Grange. Trade is chiefly in agricultural produce, wool and cider, as the district is rich in orchards. Brewing (from the produce of local hop-gardens) and the manufacture of agricultural implements are also carried on. The town is under a mayor, four aldermen and twelve councillors.

Merewald, king of Mercia, is said to have founded a religious house in Leominster (Llanlieni, Leofminstre, Lempster) in 660, and a nunnery existed here until the Conquest, when the place became a royal demesne. It was granted by Henry I. to the monks of Reading, who built in it a cell of their abbey, and under whose protection the town grew up and was exempted from the sphere of the county and hundred courts. In 1539 it reverted to the crown; and in 1554 was incorporated, by a charter renewed in 1562, 1563, 1605, 1666, 1685 and 1786. The borough returned two members to the parliament of 1295 and to other parliaments, until by the Representation Act 1867 it lost one representative, and by the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 separate representation. A fair was granted in the time of Henry II., and fairs in the seasons of Michaelmas and the feasts of St Philip and St James and of Edward the Confessor, in 1265, 1281 and 1290 respectively. Charters to the burghers authorized fairs on the days of St Peter and of St Simon and St Jude in 1554, on St Bartholomew’s day in 1605, in Mid-lent week in 1665, and on the feast of the Purification and on the 2nd of May in 1685; these fairs have modern representatives. A market was held by the abbey by a grant of Henry I.; Friday is now market day. Leominster was famous for wool from the 13th to the 18th century. There were gilds of mercers, tailors, drapers, dyers and glovers in the 16th century. In 1835 the wool trade was said to be dead; and that of glove-making, which had been important, was diminishing. Hops and apples were grown in 1715.

See G. Townsend, The Town and Borough of Leominster (1863), and John Price, An Historical and Topographical Account of Leominster and its Vicinity (Ludlow, 1715).

LEOMINSTER, a township of Worcester county, Massachusetts, U.S.A., about 45 m. N.W. of Boston and about 20 m. N. by E. of Worcester. Pop. (1890) 7269; (1900) 12,392, of whom 2827 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 17,580. It is a broken, hilly district, 26.48 sq. m. in area, traversed by the Nashua river, crossed by the Northern Division of the New York, New Haven & Hartford railroad, and by the Fitchburg Division of the Boston & Maine, and connected with Boston, Worcester and other cities by interurban electric lines. Along the N.E. border and mostly in the township of Lunenburg are Whalom Lake and Whalom Park, popular pleasure resorts. The principal villages are Leominster, 5 m. S.E. of Fitchburg, and North Leominster; the two adjoin and are virtually one. According to the Special U.S. Census of Manufactures of 1905 the township had in that year a greater diversity of important manufacturing industries than any place of its size in the state, or, probably, in the United States; its 65 manufactories, with a capital of $4,572,726 and with a product for the year valued at $7,501,720 (39% more than in 1900), produced celluloid and horn work (the manufacture of which is a more important industry here than elsewhere in the United States), celluloid combs, furniture, paper, buttons, pianos and piano-cases, children’s carriages and sleds, stationery, leatherboard, worsted, woollen and cotton goods, shirts, paper boxes, &c. Leominster owns and operates its water-works. The township was formed from a part of Lancaster township in 1740.

LEÓN, LUIS PONCE DE (1527-1591), Spanish poet and mystic, was born at Belmonte de Cuenca, entered the university of Salamanca at the age of fourteen, and in 1544 joined the Augustinian order. In 1561 he obtained a theological chair at Salamanca, to which in 1571 was added that of sacred literature. He was denounced to the Inquisition for translating the book of Canticles, and for criticizing the text of the Vulgate. He was consequently imprisoned at Valladolid from March 1572 till December 1576; the charges against him were then abandoned, and he was released with an admonition. He returned to Salamanca as professor of Biblical exegesis, and was again reported to the Inquisition in 1582, but without result. In 1583-1585 he published the three books of a celebrated mystic treatise, Los Nombres de Cristo, which he had written in prison. In 1583 also appeared the most popular of his prose works, a treatise entitled La Perfecta Casada, for the use of a lady newly married. Ten days before his death, which occurred at Madrigal on the 23rd of August 1591, he was elected vicar general of the Augustinian order. Luis de León is not only the greatest of Spanish mystics; he is among the greatest of Spanish lyrical poets. His translations of Euripides, Pindar, Virgil and Horace are singularly happy; his original pieces, whether devout like the ode De la vida del cielo, or secular like the ode A Salinas, are instinct with a serene sublimity unsurpassed in any literature, and their form is impeccable. Absorbed by less worldly interests, Fray Luis de León refrained from printing his poems, which were not issued till 1631, when Quevedo published them as a counterblast to culteranismo.

The best edition of Luis de León’s works is that of Merino (6 vols., Madrid, 1816); the reprint (Madrid, 1885) by C. Muñoz Saenz is incorrect. The text of La Perfecta Casada has been well edited by Miss Elizabeth Wallace (Chicago, 1903). See Coleccion de documentos inéditos para la historia de España, vols. x.-xi.; F. H. Reusch, Luis de León und die spanische Inquisition (Bonn, 1873); M. Gutiérrez, Fray Luis de León y la filosofía española (Madrid, 1885); M. Menendez y Pelayo, Estudios de crítica literaria (Madrid, 1893), Primera série, pp. 1-72.

LEON, MOSES [Ben Shem-ṭob] DE (d. 1305), Jewish scholar, was born in Leon (Spain) in the middle of the 13th century and died at Arevalo. His fame is due to his authorship of the most influential Kabbalist work, the Zohar (see Kabbala), which was attributed to Simon b. Yoḥai, a Rabbi of the 2nd century. In modern times the discovery of the modernity of the Zohar has led to injustice to the author. Moses de Leon undoubtedly used old materials and out of them constructed a work of genius. The discredit into which he fell was due partly to the unedifying incidents of his personal career. He led a wandering life, and was more or less of an adventurer. But as to the greatness of his work, the profundity of his philosophy and the brilliance of his religious idealism, there can be no question.

See Graetz, History of the Jews, vol. iv. ch. i.; Geiger, Leon de Modena.

(I. A.)

LEON OF MODENA (1571-1648), Jewish scholar, was born in Venice, of a notable French family which had migrated to Italy after the expulsion of the Jews from France. He was a precocious child, but, as Graetz points out, his lack of stable character prevented his gifts from maturing. “He pursued all sorts of occupations to support himself, viz. those of preacher, teacher of Jews and Christians, reader of prayers, interpreter, writer, proof-reader, bookseller, broker, merchant, rabbi, musician, matchmaker and manufacturer of amulets.” Though he failed to rise to real distinction he earned a place by his criticism of the Talmud among those who prepared the way for the new learning in Judaism. One of Leon’s most effective works was his attack on the Kabbala (’Ari Nohem, first published in 1840), for in it he demonstrated that the “Bible of the Kabbalists” (the Zohar) was a modern composition. He became best known, however, as the interpreter of Judaism to the Christian world. At the instance of an English nobleman he prepared an account of the religious customs of the Synagogue, Riti Ebraici (1637). This book was widely read by Christians; it was rendered into various languages, and in 1650 was translated into English by Edward Chilmead. At the time the Jewish question was coming to the fore in London, and Leon of Modena’s book did much to stimulate popular interest. He died at Venice.

See Graetz, History of the Jews (Eng. trans.), vol. v. ch. iii.; Jewish Encyclopedia, viii. 6; Geiger, Leon de Modena.

(I. A.)

LEÓN, or León de las Aldamas, a city of the state of Guanajuato, Mexico, 209 m. N.W. of the federal capital and 30 m. W. by N. of the city of Guanajuato. Pop. (1895) 90,978; (1900) 62,623, León ranking fourth in the latter year among the cities of Mexico. The Mexican Central gives it railway connexion with the national capital and other prominent cities of the Republic. León stands in a fertile plain on the banks of the Turbio, a tributary of the Rio Grande de Lerma, at an elevation of 5862 ft. above sea-level and in the midst of very attractive surroundings. The country about León is considered to be one of the richest cereal-producing districts of Mexico. The city itself is subject to disastrous floods, sometimes leading to loss of life as well as damage to property, as in the great flood of 1889. León is essentially a manufacturing and commercial city; it has a cathedral and a theatre, the latter one of the largest and finest in the republic. The city is regularly built, with wide streets and numerous shady parks and gardens. It manufactures saddlery and other leather work, gold and silver embroideries, cotton and woollen goods, especially rebozos (long shawls), soap and cutlery. There are also tanneries and flour mills. The city has a considerable trade in wheat and flour. The first settlement of León occurred in 1552, but its formal foundation was in 1576, and it did not reach the dignity of a city until 1836.

LEON, the capital of the department of Leon, Nicaragua, an episcopal see, and the largest city in the republic, situated midway between Lake Managua and the Pacific Ocean, 50 m. N.W. of Managua, on the railway from that city to the Pacific port of Corinto. Pop. (1905) about 45,000, including the Indian town of Subtiaba. Leon covers a very wide area, owing to its gardens and plantations. Its houses are usually one-storeyed, built of adobe and roofed with red tiles; its public buildings are among the finest in Central America. The massive and elaborately ornamented cathedral was built in the Renaissance style between 1746 and 1774; a Dominican church in Subtiaba is little less striking. The old (1678) and new (1873) episcopal palaces, the hospital, the university and the barracks (formerly a Franciscan monastery) are noteworthy examples of Spanish colonial architecture. Leon has a large general trade, and manufactures cotton and woollen fabrics, ice, cigars, boots, shoes and saddlery; its tanneries supply large quantities of cheap leather for export. But its population (about 60,000 in 1850) tends to decrease.

At the time of the Spanish conquest Subtiaba was the residence of the great cacique of Nagrando, and contained an important Indian temple. The city of Leon, founded by Francisco Hernandez de Cordova in 1523, was originally situated at the head of the western bay of Lake Managua, and was not removed to its present position till 1610. Thomas Gage, who visited it in 1665, describes it as a splendid city; and in 1685 it yielded rich booty to William Dampier (q.v.). Until 1855 Leon was the capital of Nicaragua, although its great commercial rival Granada contested its claim to that position, and the jealousy between the two cities often resulted in bloodshed. Leon was identified with the interests of the democracy of Nicaragua, Granada with the clerical and aristocratic parties.

See Nicaragua; E. G. Squier, Central America, vol. i. (1856); and T. Gage, Through Mexico, &c. (1665).

LEON, the name of a modern province and of an ancient kingdom, captaincy-general and province in north-western Spain. The modern province, founded in 1833, is bounded on the N. by Oviedo, N.E. by Santander, E. by Palencia, S. by Valladolid and Zamora and W. by Orense and Lugo. Pop. (1900) 386,083. Area, 5986 sq. m. The boundaries of the province on the north and west, formed respectively by the central ridge and southerly offshoots of the Cantabrian Mountains (q.v.), are strongly marked; towards the south-east the surface merges imperceptibly into the Castilian plateau, the line of demarcation being for the most part merely conventional. Leon belongs partly to the river system of the Miño (see Spain), partly to that of the Duero or Douro (q.v.), these being separated by the Montañas de Leon, which extend in a continuous wall (with passes at Manzanal and Poncebadon) from north to south-west. To the north-west of the Montañas de Leon is the richly wooded pastoral and highland district known as the Vierzo, which in its lower valleys produces grain, fruit, and wine in abundance. The Tierra del Campo in the west of the province is fairly productive, but in need of irrigation. The whole province is sparsely peopled. Apart from agriculture, stock-raising and mining, its commerce and industries are unimportant. Cattle, mules, butter, leather, coal and iron are exported. The hills of Leon were worked for gold in the time of the Romans; iron is still obtained, and coal-mining developed considerably towards the close of the 19th century. The only towns with more than 5000 inhabitants in 1900 were Leon (15,580) and Astorga (5573) (q.v.). The main railway from Madrid to Corunna passes through the province, and there are branches from the city of Leon to Vierzo, Oviedo, and the Biscayan port of Gijón.

At the time of the Roman conquest, the province was inhabited by the Vettones and Callaici; it afterwards formed part of Hispania Tarraconensis. Among the Christian kingdoms which arose in Spain as the Moorish invasion of the 8th century receded, Leon was one of the oldest. The title of king of Leon was first assumed by Ordoño in 913. Ferdinand I. (the Great) of Castile united the crowns of Castile and Leon in the 11th century; the two were again separated in the 12th, until a final union took place (1230) in the person of St Ferdinand. The limits of the kingdom varied with the vicissitudes of war, but roughly speaking it may be said to have embraced what are now the provinces of Leon, Palencia, Valladolid, Zamora and Salamanca. For a detailed account of this kingdom, see Spain: History. The captaincy-general of the province of Leon before 1833 included Leon, Zamora and Salamanca. The Leonese, or inhabitants of these three provinces, have less individuality, in character and physique, than the people of Galicia, Catalonia or Andalusia, who are quite distinct from what is usually regarded as the central or national Spanish type, i.e. the Castilian. The Leonese belong partly to the Castilian section of the Spaniards, partly to the north-western section which includes the Galicians and Asturians. They have comparatively few of the Moorish traits which are so marked in the south and east of Spain. Near Astorga there dwells a curious tribe, the Maragatos, sometimes considered to be a remnant of the original Celtiberian inhabitants. As a rule the Maragatos earn their living as muleteers or carriers; they wear a distinctive costume, mix as little as possible with their neighbours and do not marry outside their own tribe.

LEON, an episcopal see and the capital of the Spanish province of Leon, situated on a hill 2631 ft. above sea-level, in the angle made by the Torio and Bernesga, streams which unite on the south, and form the river Leon, a tributary of the Esla. Pop. (1900) 15,580. Leon is on the main railway from Madrid to Oviedo, and is connected with Astorga by a branch line. The older quarters of the city, which contain the cathedral and other medieval buildings, are surrounded by walls, and have lost little of their beauty and interest from the restoration carried out in the second half of the 19th century. During the same period new suburbs grew up outside the walls to house the industrial population which was attracted by the development of iron-founding and the manufacture of machinery, railway-plant, chemicals and leather. Leon thus comprises two towns—the old, which is mainly ecclesiastical in its character, and the new, which is industrial. The cathedral, founded in 1199 and only finished at the close of the 14th century, is built of a warm cream-coloured stone, and is remarkable for simplicity, lightness and strength. It is one of the finest examples of Spanish Gothic, smaller, indeed, than the cathedrals of Burgos and Toledo, but exquisite in design and workmanship. The chapter library contains some valuable manuscripts. The collegiate church of San Isidoro was founded by Ferdinand I. of Castile in 1063 and consecrated in 1149. Its architecture is Romanesque. The church contains some fine plate, including the silver reliquary in which the bones of St Isidore of Seville are preserved, and a silver processional cross dating from the 16th century, which is one of the most beautiful in the country. The convent and church of San Marcos, planned in 1514 by Ferdinand the Catholic, founded by Charles V. in 1537, and consecrated in 1541, are Renaissance in style. They are built on the site of a hostel used by pilgrims on their way to Santiago de Compostela. The provincial museum occupies the chapterhouse and contains some interesting Roman monuments. The lower part of the city walls consists of Roman masonry dating from the 3rd century. Other buildings are the high school, ecclesiastical seminaries, hospital, episcopal palace and municipal and provincial halls.

Leon (Arab. Liyun) owes its name to the Legio Septima Gemina of Galba, which, under the later emperors, had its headquarters here. About 540 Leon fell into the hands of the Gothic king Leovigild, and in 717 it capitulated to the Moors. Retaken about 742, it ultimately, in the beginning of the 10th century, became the capital of the kingdom of Leon (see Spain: History). About 996 it was taken by Almansur, but on his death soon afterwards it reverted to the Spaniards. It was the seat of several ecclesiastical councils, the first of which was held under Alphonso V. in 1012 and the last in 1288.

LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519), the great Italian painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mechanician, engineer and natural philosopher, was the son of a Florentine lawyer, born out of wedlock by a mother in a humble station, variously described as a peasant and as of gentle birth. The place of his birth was Vinci, a castello or fortified hill village in the Florentine territory near Empoli, from which his father’s family derived its name. The Christian name of the father was Piero (the son of Antonio the son of Piero the son of Guido, all of whom had been men of law like their descendant). Leonardo’s mother was called Catarina. Her relations with Ser Piero da Vinci seem to have come to an end almost immediately upon the birth of their son. She was soon afterwards married to one Accattabriga di Piero del Vacca, of Vinci. Ser Piero on his part was four times married, and had by his last two wives nine sons and two daughters; but he had from the first acknowledged the boy Leonardo and brought him up in his own house, principally, no doubt, at Florence. In that city Ser Piero followed his profession with success, as notary to many of the chief families in the city, including the Medici, and afterwards to the signory or governing council of the state. The son born to him before marriage grew up into a youth of shining promise. To splendid beauty and activity of person he joined a winning charm of temper and manners, a tact for all societies, and an aptitude for all accomplishments. An inexhaustible intellectual energy and curiosity lay beneath this amiable surface. Among the multifarious pursuits to which the young Leonardo set his hand, the favourites at first were music, drawing and modelling. His father showed some of his drawings to an acquaintance, Andrea del Verrocchio, who at once recognized the boy’s artistic vocation, and was selected by Ser Piero to be his master.

Verrocchio, although hardly one of the great creative or inventive forces in the art of his age at Florence, was a first-rate craftsman alike as goldsmith, sculptor and painter, and particularly distinguished as a teacher. In his studio Leonardo worked for several years (about 1470-1477) in the company of Lorenzo di Credi and other less celebrated pupils. Among his contemporaries he formed special ties of friendship with the painters Sandro Botticelli and Pietro Perugino. He had soon learnt all that Verrocchio had to teach—more than all, if we are to believe the oft-told tale of the figure, or figures, executed by the pupil in the picture of Christ’s Baptism designed by the master for the monks of Vallombrosa. The work in question is now in the Academy at Florence. According to Vasari the angel kneeling on the left, with a drapery over the right arm, was put in by Leonardo, and when Verrocchio saw it his sense of its superiority to his own work caused him to forswear painting for ever after. The latter part of the story is certainly false. The picture, originally painted in tempera, has suffered much from later repaints in oil, rendering exact judgment difficult. The most competent opinion inclines to acknowledge the hand of Leonardo, not only in the face of the angel, but also in parts of the drapery and of the landscape background. The work was probably done in or about 1470, when Leonardo was eighteen years old. By 1472 we find him enrolled in the lists of the painters’ gild at Florence. Here he continued to live and work for ten or eleven years longer. Up till 1477 he is still spoken of as a pupil or apprentice of Verrocchio; but in that year he seems to have been taken into special favour by Lorenzo the Magnificent, and to have worked as an independent artist under his patronage until 1482-1483. In 1478 we find him receiving an important commission from the signory, and in 1480 another from the monks of San Donato in Scopeto.

Leonardo was not one of those artists of the Renaissance who sought the means of reviving the ancient glories of art mainly in the imitation of ancient models. The antiques of the Medici gardens seem to have had little influence on him beyond that of generally stimulating his passion for perfection. By his own instincts he was an exclusive student of nature. From his earliest days he had flung himself upon that study with an unprecedented ardour of delight and curiosity. In drawing from life he had early found the way to unite precision with freedom and fire—the subtlest accuracy of expressive definition with vital movement and rhythm of line—as no draughtsman had been able to unite them before. He was the first painter to recognize the play of light and shade as among the most significant and attractive of the world’s appearances, the earlier schools having with one consent subordinated light and shade to colour and outline. Nor was he a student of the broad, usual, patent appearances only of the world; its fugitive, fantastic, unaccustomed appearances attracted him most of all. Strange shapes of hills and rocks, rare plants and animals, unusual faces and figures of men, questionable smiles and expressions, whether beautiful or grotesque, far-fetched objects and curiosities, were things he loved to pore upon and keep in memory. Neither did he stop at mere appearances of any kind, but, having stamped the image of things upon his brain, went on indefatigably to probe their hidden laws and causes. He soon satisfied himself that the artist who was content to reproduce the external aspects of things without searching into the hidden workings of nature behind them, was one but half equipped for his calling. Every fresh artistic problem immediately became for him a far-reaching scientific problem as well. The laws of light and shade, the laws of “perspective,” including optics and the physiology of the eye, the laws of human and animal anatomy and muscular movement, those of the growth and structure of plants and of the powers and properties of water, all these and much more furnished food almost from the beginning to his insatiable spirit of inquiry.

The evidence of the young man’s predilections and curiosities is contained in the legends which tell of lost works produced by him in youth. One of these was a cartoon or monochrome painting of Adam and Eve in tempera, and in this, besides the beauty of the figures, the infinite truth and elaboration of the foliage and animals in the background are celebrated in terms which bring to mind the treatment of the subject by Albrecht Dürer in his famous engraving done thirty years later. Again, a peasant of Vinci having in his simplicity asked Ser Piero to get a picture painted for him on a wooden shield, the father is said to have laughingly handed on the commission to his son, who thereupon shut himself up with all the noxious insects and grotesque reptiles he could find, observed and drew and dissected them assiduously, and produced at last a picture of a dragon compounded of their various shapes and aspects, which was so fierce and so life-like as to terrify all who saw it. With equal research and no less effect he painted on another occasion the head of a snaky-haired Medusa. (A picture of this subject which long did duty at the Uffizi for Leonardo’s work is in all likelihood merely the production of some later artist to whom the descriptions of that work have given the cue.) Lastly, Leonardo is related to have begun work in sculpture about this time by modelling several heads of smiling women and children.

Of certified and accepted paintings produced by the young genius, whether during his apprentice or his independent years at Florence (about 1470-1482), very few are extant, and the two most important are incomplete. A small and charming strip of an oblong “Annunciation” at the Louvre is generally accepted as his work, done soon after 1470; a very highly wrought drawing at the Uffizi, corresponding on a larger scale to the head of the Virgin in the same picture, seems rather to be a copy by a later hand. This little Louvre “Annunciation” is not very compatible in style with another and larger, much-debated “Annunciation” at the Uffizi, which manifestly came from the workshop of Verrocchio about 1473-1474, and which many critics claim confidently for the young Leonardo. It may have been joint studio-work of Verrocchio and his pupils including Leonardo, who certainly was concerned in it, since a study for the sleeve of the angel, preserved at Christ Church, Oxford, is unquestionably by his hand. The landscape, with its mysterious spiry mountains and winding waters, is very Leonardesque both in this picture and in another contemporary product of the workshop, or as some think of Leonardo’s hand, namely a very highly and coldly finished small “Madonna with a Pink” at Munich. The likeness he is recorded to have painted of Ginevra de’ Benci used to be traditionally identified with the fine portrait of a matron at the Pitti absurdly known as La Monaca: more lately it has been recognized in a rather dull, expressionless Verrocchiesque portrait of a young woman with a fanciful background of pine-sprays in the Liechtenstein gallery at Vienna. Neither attribution can be counted convincing. Several works of sculpture, including a bas-relief at Pistoia and a small terra-cotta model of a St John at the Victoria and Albert Museum, have also been claimed, but without general consent, as the young master’s handiwork. Of many brilliant early drawings by him, the first that can be dated is a study of landscape done in 1473. A magnificent silver-point head of a Roman warrior at the British Museum was clearly done, from or for a bas-relief, under the immediate influence of Verrocchio. A number of studies of heads in pen or silver point, with some sketches for Madonnas, including a charming series in the British Museum for a “Madonna with the Cat,” may belong to the same years or the first years of his independence. A sheet with two studies of heads bears a MS. note of 1478, saying that in one of the last months of that year he began painting the “Two Maries.” One of the two may have been a picture of the Virgin appearing to St Bernard, which we know he was commissioned to paint in that year for a chapel in the Palace of the Signory, but never finished: the commission was afterwards transferred to Filippino Lippi, whose performance is now in the Badia. One of the two heads on this dated sheet may probably have been a study for the same St Bernard; it was used afterwards by some follower for a St Leonard in a stiff and vapid “Ascension of Christ,” wrongly attributed to the master himself in the Berlin Museum. A pen-drawing representing a ringleader of the Pazzi conspiracy, Bernardo Baroncelli, hung out of a window of the Bargello after his surrender by the sultan at Constantinople to the emissaries of Florence, can be dated from its subject as done in December 1479. A number of his best drawings of the next following years are preparatory pen-studies for an altar-piece of the “Adoration of the Magi,” undertaken early in 1481 on the commission of the monks of S. Donato at Scopeto. The preparation in monochrome for this picture, a work of extraordinary power both of design and physiognomical expression, is preserved at the Uffizi, but the painting itself was never carried out, and after Leonardo’s failure to fulfil his contract Filippino Lippi had once more to be employed in his place. Of equal or even more intense power, though of narrower scope, is an unfinished monochrome preparation for a St Jerome, found accidentally at Rome by Cardinal Fesch and now in the Vatican gallery; this also seems to belong to the first Florentine period, but is not mentioned in documents.

The tale of completed work for these twelve or fourteen years (1470-1483 or thereabouts) is thus very scanty. But it must be remembered that Leonardo was already full of projects in mechanics, hydraulics, architecture, and military and civil engineering, ardently feeling his way in the work of experimental study and observation in every branch of theoretical or applied science in which any beginning had been made in his age, as well as in some in which he was himself the first pioneer. He was full of new ideas concerning both the laws and the applications of mechanical forces. His architectural and engineering projects were of a daring which amazed even the fellow-citizens of Alberti and Brunelleschi. History presents few figures more attractive to the mind’s eye than that of Leonardo during this period of his all-capable and dazzling youth. He did not indeed escape calumny, and was even denounced on a charge of immoral practices, but fully and honourably acquitted. There was nothing about him, as there was afterwards about Michelangelo, dark-tempered, secret or morose; he was open and genial with all men. He has indeed praised “the self-sufficing power of solitude” in almost the same phrase as Wordsworth, and from time to time would even in youth seclude himself for a season in complete intellectual absorption, as when he toiled among his bats and wasps and lizards, forgetful of rest and food, and insensible to the noisomeness of their corruption. But we have to picture him as anon coming out and gathering about him a tatterdemalion company, and jesting with them until they were in fits of laughter, for the sake of observing their burlesque physiognomies; anon as eagerly frequenting the society of men of science and learning of an older generation like the mathematician Benedetto Aritmetico, the physician, geographer and astronomer Paolo Toscanelli, the famous Greek Aristotelian Giovanni Argiropoulo; or as out-rivalling all the youth of the city now by charm of recitation, now by skill in music and now by feats of strength and horsemanship; or as stopping to buy caged birds in the market that he might set them free and watch them rejoicing in their flight; or again as standing radiant in his rose-coloured cloak and his rich gold hair among the throng of young and old on the piazza, and holding them spellbound while he expatiated on the great projects in art and mechanics that were teeming in his mind. Unluckily it is to written records and to imagination that we have to trust exclusively for our picture. No portrait of Leonardo as he appeared during this period of his life has come down to us.

But his far-reaching schemes and studies brought him no immediate gain, and diverted him from the tasks by which he should have supported himself. For all his shining power and promise he remained poor. Probably also his exclusive belief in experimental methods, and slight regard for mere authority whether in science or art made the intellectual atmosphere of the Medicean circle, with its passionate mixed cult of the classic past and of a Christianity mystically blended and reconciled with Platonism, uncongenial to him. At any rate he was ready to leave Florence when the chance was offered him of fixed service at the court of Ludovico Sforza (il Moro) at Milan. Soon after that prince had firmly established his power as nominal guardian and protector of his nephew Gian Galeazzo but really as usurping ruler of the state, he revived a project previously mooted for the erection of an equestrian monument in honour of the founder of his house’s greatness, Francesco Sforza, and consulted Lorenzo dei Medici on the choice of an artist. Lorenzo recommended the young Leonardo, who went to Milan accordingly (at some uncertain date in or about 1483), taking as a gift from Lorenzo and a token of his own skill a silver lute of wondrous sweetness fashioned in the likeness of a horse’s head. Hostilities were at the moment imminent between Milan and Venice; it was doubtless on that account that in the letter commending himself to the duke, and setting forth his own capacities, Leonardo rests his title to patronage chiefly on his attainments and inventions in military engineering. After asserting these in detail under nine different heads, he speaks under a tenth of his proficiency as a civil engineer and architect, and adds lastly a brief paragraph with reference to what he can do in painting and sculpture, undertaking in particular to carry out in a fitting manner the monument to Francesco Sforza.

The first definite documentary evidence of Leonardo’s employments at Milan dates from 1487. Some biographers have supposed that the interval, or part of it, between 1483 and that date was occupied by travels in the East. The grounds of the supposition are some drafts occurring among his MSS. of a letter addressed to the diodario or diwâdar of Syria, lieutenant of the sultan of Babylon (Babylon meaning according to a usage of that time Cairo). In these drafts Leonardo describes in the first person, with sketches, a traveller’s strange experiences in Egypt, Cyprus, Constantinople, the Cilician coasts about Mount Taurus and Armenia. He relates the rise and persecution of a prophet and preacher, the catastrophe of a falling mountain and submergence of a great city, followed by a general inundation, and the claim of the prophet to have foretold these disasters; adding physical descriptions of the Euphrates river and the marvellous effects of sunset light on the Taurus range. No contemporary gives the least hint of Leonardo’s having travelled in the East; to the places he mentions he gives their classical and not their current Oriental names; the catastrophes he describes are unattested from any other source; he confuses the Taurus and the Caucasus; some of the phenomena he mentions are repeated from Aristotle and Ptolemy; and there seems little reason to doubt that these passages in his MSS. are merely his drafts of a projected geographical treatise or perhaps romance. He had a passion for geography and travellers’ tales, for descriptions of natural wonders and ruined cities, and was himself a practised fictitious narrator and fabulist, as other passages in his MSS. prove. Neither is the gap in the account of his doings after he first went to the court of Milan really so complete as has been represented. Ludovico was vehemently denounced and attacked during the earlier years of his usurpation, especially by the partisans of his sister-in-law Bona of Savoy, the mother of the rightful duke, young Gian Galeazzo. To repel these attacks he employed the talents of a number of court poets and artists, who in public recitation and pageant, in emblematic picture and banner and device, proclaimed the wisdom and kindness of his guardianship and the wickedness of his assailants. That Leonardo was among the artists thus employed is proved both by notes and projects among his MSS. and by allegoric sketches still extant. Several such sketches are at Christ Church, Oxford: one shows a horned hag or she-fiend urging her hounds to an attack on the state of Milan, and baffled by the Prudence and Justice of Il Moro (all this made clear by easily recognizable emblems). The allusion must almost certainly be to the attempted assassination of Ludovico by agents of the duchess Bona in 1484. Again, it must have been the pestilence decimating Milan in 1484-1485 which gave occasion to the projects submitted by Leonardo to Ludovico for breaking up the city and reconstructing it on improved sanitary principles. To 1485-1486 also appears to belong the inception of his elaborate though unfulfilled architectural plans for beautifying and strengthening the Castello, the great stronghold of the ruling power in the state. Very soon afterwards he must have begun work upon his plans and models, undertaken during an acute phase of the competition which the task had called forth between German and Italian architects, for another momentous enterprise, the completion of Milan cathedral. Extant records of payments made to him in connexion with these architectural plans extend from August 1487 to May 1490: in the upshot none of them was carried out. From the beginning of his residence with Ludovico his combination of unprecedented mechanical ingenuity with apt allegoric invention and courtly charm and eloquence had made him the directing spirit in all court ceremonies and festivities. On the occasion of the marriage of the young duke Gian Galeazzo with Isabella of Aragon in 1487, we find Leonardo devising all the mechanical and spectacular part of a masque of Paradise; and presently afterwards designing a bathing pavilion of unheard-of beauty and ingenuity for the young duchess. Meanwhile he was filling his note-books as busily as ever with the results of his studies in statics and dynamics, in human anatomy, geometry and the phenomena of light and shade. It is probable that from the first he had not forgotten his great task of the Sforza monument, with its attendant researches in equine movement and anatomy, and in the science and art of bronze casting on a great scale. The many existing sketches for the work (of which the chief collection is at Windsor) cannot be distinctly dated. In 1490, the seventh year of his residence at Milan, after some expressions of impatience on the part of his patron, he had all but got his model ready for display on the occasion of the marriage of Ludovico with Beatrice d’Este, but at the last moment was dissatisfied with what he had done and determined to begin all over again.

In the same year, 1490, Leonardo enjoyed some months of uninterrupted mathematical and physical research in the libraries and among the learned men of Pavia, whither he had been called to advise on some architectural difficulties concerning the cathedral. Here also the study of an ancient equestrian monument (the so-called Regisole, destroyed in 1796) gave him fresh ideas for his Francesco Sforza. In January 1491 a double Sforza-Este marriage (Ludovico Sforza himself with Beatrice d’Este, Alfonso d’Este with Anna Sforza the sister of Gian Galeazzo) again called forth his powers as a masque and pageant-master. For the next following years the ever-increasing gaiety and splendour of the Milanese court gave him continual employment in similar kinds, including the composition and recitation of jests, tales, fables and “prophecies” (i.e. moral and social satires and allegories cast in the future tense); among his MSS. occur the drafts of many such, some of them both profound and pungent. Meanwhile he was again at work upon the monument to Francesco Sforza, and this time to practical purpose. When ambassadors from Austria came to Milan towards the close of 1493 to escort the betrothed bride of their emperor Maximilian, Bianca Maria Sforza, away on her nuptial journey, the finished colossal model, 26 ft. high, was at last in its place for all to see in the courtyard of the Castello. Contemporary accounts attest the magnificence of the work and the enthusiasm it excited, but are not precise enough to enable us to judge to which of the two main groups of extant sketches its design corresponded. One of these groups shows the horse and rider in relatively tranquil march, in the manner of the Gattemalata monument put up fifty years before by Donatello at Padua and the Colleoni monument on which Verocchio was now engaged at Venice. Another group of sketches shows the horse galloping or rearing in violent action, in some instances in the act of trampling a fallen enemy. Neither is it possible to discriminate with certainty the sketches intended for the Sforza monument from others which Leonardo may have done in view of another and later commission for an equestrian statue, namely, that in honour of Ludovico’s great enemy, Gian Giacomo Trivulzio.

The year 1494 is a momentous one in the history of Italian politics. In that year the long ousted and secluded prince, Gian Galeazzo, died under circumstances more than suspicious. In that year Ludovico, now duke of Milan in his own right, for the strengthening of his power against Naples, first entered into those intrigues with Charles VIII. of France which later brought upon Italy successive floods of invasion, revolution and calamity. The same year was one of special importance in the prodigiously versatile activities of Leonardo da Vinci. Documents show him, among other things, planning during an absence of several months from the city vast new engineering works for improving the irrigation and water-ways of the Lomellina and adjacent regions of the Lombard plain; ardently studying phenomena of storm and lightning, of river action and of mountain structure; co-operating with his friend, Donato Bramante, the great architect, in fresh designs for the improvement and embellishment of the Castello at Milan; and petitioning the duke to secure him proper payment for a Madonna lately executed with the help of his pupil, Ambrogio de Predis, for the brotherhood of the Conception of St Francis at Milan. (This is almost certainly the fine, slightly altered second version of the “Virgin of the Rocks,” now in the National Gallery, London. The original and earlier version is one of the glories of the Louvre, and shows far more of a Florentine and less of a Milanese character than the London picture.) In the same year, 1494, or early in the next, Leonardo, if Vasari is to be trusted, paid a visit to Florence to take part in deliberations concerning the projected new council-hall to be constructed in the palace of the Signory. Lastly, recent research has proved that it was in 1494 that Leonardo got to work in earnest on what was to prove not only by far his greatest but by far his most expeditiously and steadily executed work in painting. This was the “Last Supper” undertaken for the refectory of the convent church of Sta Maria delle Grazie at Milan on the joint commission (as it would appear) of Ludovico and of the monks themselves.

This picture, the world-famous “Cenacolo” of Leonardo, has been the subject of much erroneous legend and much misdirected experiment. Having through centuries undergone cruel injury, from technical imperfections at the outset, from disastrous atmospheric conditions, from vandalism and neglect, and most of all from unskilled repair, its remains have at last (1904-1908) been treated with a mastery of scientific resource and a tenderness of conscientious skill that have revived for ourselves and for posterity a great part of its power. At the same time its true history has been investigated and re-established. The intensity of intellectual and manual application which Leonardo threw into the work is proved by the fact that he finished it within four years, in spite of all his other avocations and of those prolonged pauses of concentrated imaginative effort and intense self-critical brooding to which we have direct contemporary witness. He painted the picture on the wall in tempera, not, according to the legend which sprung up within twenty years of its completion, in oil. The tempera vehicle, perhaps including new experimental ingredients, did not long hold firmly to its plaster ground, nor that to the wall. Flaking and scaling set in; hard crusts of mildew formed, dissolved and re-formed with changes of weather over both the loosened parts and those that remained firm. Decade after decade these processes went on, a rain of minute scales and grains falling, according to one witness, continually from the surface, till the picture seemed to be perishing altogether. In the 18th century attempts were first made at restoration. They all proceeded on the false assumption, dating from the early years of the 16th century, that the work had been executed in oil. With oil it was accordingly at one time saturated in hopes of reviving the colours. Other experimenters tried various “secrets,” which for the most part meant deleterious glues and varnishes. Fortunately not very much of actual repainting was accomplished except on some parts of the garments. The chief operations were carried on by Bellotti in 1726, by Mazza in 1770, and by Barezzi in 1819 and the following years. None of them arrested, some actually accelerated, the natural agencies of damp and disintegration, decay and mildew. Yet this mere ghost of a picture, this evocation, half vanished as it was, by a great world-genius of a mighty spiritual world-event, remained a thing indescribably impressive. The ghost has now been brought back to much of true life again by the skill of the most scrupulous of all restorers, Cavaliere Cavenaghi, who, acting under the authority of a competent commission, and after long and patient experiment, found it possible to secure to the wall the innumerable blistered, mildewed and half-detached flakes and scales of the original work that yet remained, to clear the surface thus obtained of much of the obliterating accretions due to decay and mishandling, and to bring the whole to unity by touching tenderly in with tempera the spots and spaces actually left bare. A further gain obtained through these operations has been the uncovering, immediately above the main subject, of a beautiful scheme of painted lunettes and vaultings, the lunettes filled by Leonardo’s hand with inscribed scutcheons and interlaced plait or knot ornaments (intrecciamenti), the vaultings with stars on a blue ground. The total result, if adequate steps can be taken to counteract the effects of atmospheric change in future, will remain a splendid gain for posterity and a happy refutation of D’Annunzio’s despairing poem, the Death of a Masterpiece.

Leonardo’s “Last Supper,” for all its injuries, became from the first, and has ever since remained, for all Christendom the typical representation of the scene. Goethe in his famous criticism has said all that needs to be said of it. The painter has departed from precedent in grouping the disciples, with their Master in the midst, along the far side and the two ends of a long, narrow table, and in leaving the near or service side of the table towards the spectator free. The chamber is seen in a perfectly symmetrical perspective, its rear wall pierced by three plain openings which admit the sense of quiet distance and mystery from the open landscape beyond; by the central of these openings, which is the widest of the three, the head and shoulders of the Saviour are framed in. On His right and left are ranged the disciples in equal numbers. The furniture and accessories of the chamber, very simply conceived, have been rendered with scrupulous exactness and distinctness; yet they leave to the human and dramatic elements the absolute mastery of the scene. The serenity of the holy company has within a moment been broken by the words of their Master, “One of you shall betray Me.” In the agitation of their consciences and affections, the disciples have started into groups or clusters along the table, some standing, some still remaining seated. There are four of these groups, of three disciples each, and each group is harmoniously interlinked by some natural connecting action with the next. Leonardo, though no special student of the Greeks, has perfectly carried out the Greek principle of expressive variety in particulars subordinated to general symmetry. He has used all his acquired science of linear and aerial perspective to create an almost complete illusion to the eye, but an illusion that has in it nothing trivial, and in heightening our sense of the material reality of the scene only heightens its profound spiritual impressiveness and gravity. The results of his intensest meditations on the psychology and the human and divine significance of the event (on which he has left some pregnant hints in written words of his own) are perfectly fused with those of his subtlest technical calculations on the rhythmical balancing of groups and arrangement of figures in space.

Of authentic preparatory studies for this work there remain but few. There is a sheet at the Louvre of much earlier date than the first idea or commission for this particular picture, containing some nude sketches for the arrangement of the subject; another later and farther advanced, but still probably anterior to the practical commission, at Venice, and a MS. sheet of great interest at the Victoria and Albert Museum, on which the painter has noted in writing the dramatic motives appropriate to the several disciples. At Windsor and Milan are a few finished studies in red chalk for the heads. A highly-reputed series of life-sized chalk drawings of the same heads, of which the greater portion is at Weimar, consists of early copies, and is interesting though having no just claim to originality. Scarcely less doubtful is the celebrated unfinished and injured study of the head of Christ at the Brera, Milan.

Leonardo’s triumph with his “Last Supper” encouraged him in the hope of proceeding now to the casting of the Sforza monument or “Great Horse,” the model of which had stood for the last three years the admiration of all beholders, in the Corte Vecchio of the Castello. He had formed a new and close friendship with Luca Pacioli of Borgo San Sepolcro, the great mathematician, whose Summa de aritmetica, geometrica, &c., he had eagerly bought at Pavia on its first appearance, and who arrived at the Court of Milan about the moment of the completion of the “Cenacolo.” Pacioli was equally amazed and delighted at Leonardo’s two great achievements in sculpture and painting, and still more at the genius for mathematical, physical and anatomical research shown in the collections of MS. notes which the master laid before him. The two began working together on the materials for Pacioli’s next book, De divina proportione. Leonardo obtained Pacioli’s help in calculations and measurements for the great task of casting the bronze horse and man. But he was soon called away by Ludovico to a different undertaking, the completion of the interior decorations, already begun by another hand and interrupted, of certain chambers of the Castello called the Saletta Negra and the Sala Grande dell’ Asse, or Sala della Torre. When, in the last decade of the 19th century, works of thorough architectural investigation and repair were undertaken in that building under the superintendence of Professor Luca Beltrami, a devoted foreign student, Dr Paul Müller-Walde, obtained leave to scrape for traces of Leonardo’s handiwork beneath the replastered and white-washed walls and ceilings of chambers that might be identified with these. In one small chamber there was cleared a frieze of cupids intermingled with foliage; but in this, after the first moments of illusion, it was only possible to acknowledge the hand of some unknown late and lax decorator of the school, influenced as much by Raphael as by Leonardo. In another room (Sala del Tesoro) was recovered a gigantic headless figure, in all probability of Mercury, also wrongly claimed at first for Leonardo, and afterwards, to all appearance rightly, for Bramante. But in the great Sala dell’ Asse (or della Torre) abundant traces of Leonardo’s own hand were found, in the shape of a decoration of intricate geometrical knot or plait work combined with natural leafage; the abstract puzzle-pattern, of a kind in which Leonardo took peculiar pleasure, intermingling in cunning play and contrast with a pattern of living boughs and leaves exquisitely drawn in free and vital growth. Sufficient portions of this design were found in good preservation to enable the whole to be accurately restored—a process as legitimate in such a case as censurable in the case of a figure-painting. For these and other artistic labours Leonardo was rewarded in 1498 (ready money being with difficulty forthcoming and his salary being long in arrears) by the gift of a suburban garden outside the Porta Vercelli.

But again he could not get leave to complete the task in hand. He was called away on duty as chief military engineer (ingegnere camerale) with the special charge of inspecting and maintaining all the canals and waterways of the duchy. Dangers were accumulating upon Ludovico and the state of Milan. France had become Ludovico’s enemy; and Louis XII., the pope and Venice had formed a league to divide his principality among them. He counted on baffling them by forming a counter league of the principalities of northern Italy, and by raising the Turks against Venice, and the Germans and Swiss against France. Germans and Swiss, however, inopportunely fell to war against each other. Ludovico travelled to Innsbruck, the better to push his interests (September 1499). In his absence Louis XII. invaded the Milanese, and the officers left in charge of the city surrendered it without striking a blow. The invading sovereign, going to Sta Maria delle Grazie with his retinue to admire the renowned painting of the “Last Supper,” asked if it could not be detached from the wall and transported to France. The French lieutenant in Milan, Gian Giacomo Trivulzio, the embittered enemy of Ludovico, began exercising a vindictive tyranny over the city which had so long accepted the sway of the usurper. Great artists were usually exempt from the consequences of political revolutions, and Trivulzio, now or later, commissioned Leonardo to design an equestrian monument to himself. Leonardo, having remained unmolested at Milan for two months under the new régime, but knowing that Ludovico was preparing a great stroke for the re-establishment of his power, and that fresh convulsions must ensue, thought it best to provide for his own security. In December he left Milan with his friend Luca Pacioli, having first sent some of his modest savings to Florence for investment. His intention was to watch events. They took a turn which made him a stranger to Milan for the next seven years. Ludovico, at the head of an army of Swiss mercenaries, returned victoriously in February 1500, and was welcomed by a population disgusted with the oppression of the invaders. But in April he was once more overthrown by the French in a battle fought at Novara, his Swiss clamouring at the last moment for their overdue pay, and treacherously refusing to fight against a force of their own countrymen led by La Trémouille. Ludovico was taken prisoner and carried to France; the city, which had been strictly spared on the first entry of Louis XII., was entered and sacked; and the model of Leonardo’s great statue made a butt (as eye witnesses tell) for Gascon archers. Two years later we find the duke Ercole of Ferrara begging the French king’s lieutenant in Milan to let him have the model, injured as it was, for the adornment of his own city; but nothing came of the petition, and within a short time it seems to have been totally broken up.

Thus, of Leonardo’s sixteen years’ work at Milan (1483-1499) the results actually remaining are as follows: The Louvre “Virgin of the Rocks” possibly, i.e. as to its execution; the conception and style are essentially Florentine, carried out by Leonardo to a point of intense and almost glittering finish, of quintessential, almost overstrained, refinement in design and expression, and invested with a new element of romance by the landscape in which the scene is set—a strange watered country of basaltic caves and arches, with the lights and shadows striking sharply and yet mysteriously among rocks, some upright, some jutting, some pendent, all tufted here and there with exquisite growths of shrub and flower. The National Gallery “Virgin of the Rocks” certainly, with help from Ambrogio de Predis; in this the Florentine character of the original is modified by an admixture of Milanese elements, the tendency to harshness and over-elaboration of detail softened, the strained action of the angel’s pointing hand altogether dropped, while in many places pupils’ work seems recognizable beside that of the master. The “Last Supper” of Sta Maria delle Grazie, his masterpiece; as to its history and present condition enough has been said. The decorations of the ceiling of the Sala della Torre in the Castello. Other paintings done by him at Milan are mentioned, and attempts have been made to identify them with works still existing. He is known to have painted portraits of two of the king’s mistresses, Cecilia Gallerani and Lucrezia Crivelli. Cecilia Gallerani used to be identified as a lady with ringlets and a lute, depicted in a portrait at Milan, now rightly assigned to Bartolommeo Veneto. More lately she has by some been conjecturally recognized in a doubtful, though Leonardesque, portrait of a lady with a weasel in the Czartoryski collection at Prague. Lucrezia Crivelli has, with no better reason, been identified with the famous “Belle Ferronnière” (a mere misnomer, caught from the true name of another portrait which used to hang near it) at the Louvre; this last is either a genuine Milanese portrait by Leonardo himself or an extraordinarily fine work of his pupil Boltraffio. Strong claims have also been made on behalf of a fine profile portrait resembling Beatrice d’Este in the Ambrosiana; but this the best judges are agreed in regarding as a work, done in a lucky hour, of Ambrogio de Predis. A portrait of a musician in the same gallery is in like manner contested between the master and the pupil. Mention is made of a “Nativity” painted for and sent to the emperor Maximilian, and also apparently of some picture painted for Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary; both are lost or at least unidentified. The painters especially recorded as Leonardo’s immediate pupils during this part of his life at Milan are the two before mentioned, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio and Ambrogio Preda or de Predis, with Marco d’Oggionno and Andrea Salai, the last apparently less a fully-trained painter than a studio assistant and personal attendant, devotedly attached and faithful in both capacities. Leonardo’s own native Florentine manner had at first been not a little modified by that of the Milanese school as he found it represented in the works of such men as Bramantino, Borgognone and Zenale; but his genius had in its turn reacted far more strongly upon the younger members of the school, and exercised, now or later, a transforming and dominating influence not only upon his immediate pupils, but upon men like Luini, Giampetrino, Bazzi, Cesare da Sesto and indeed the whole Lombard school in the early 15th century. Of sculpture done by him during this period we have no remains, only the tragically tantalizing history of the Sforza monument. Of drawings there are very many, including few only for the “Last Supper,” many for the Sforza monument, as well as the multitude of sketches, scientific and other, which we find intermingled among the vast body of his miscellaneous MSS., notes and records. In mechanical, scientific and theoretical studies of all kinds it was a period, as these MSS. attest, of extraordinary activity and self-development. At Pavia in 1494 we find him taking up literary and grammatical studies, both in Latin and the vernacular; the former, no doubt, in order the more easily to read those among the ancients who had laboured in the fields that were his own, as Euclid, Galen, Celsus, Ptolemy, Pliny, Vitruvius and, above all, Archimedes; the latter with a growing hope of some day getting into proper form and order the mass of materials he was daily accumulating for treatises on all his manifold subjects of enquiry. He had been much helped by his opportunities of intercourse with the great architects, engineers and mathematicians who frequented the court of Milan—Bramante, Alberghetti, Andrea di Ferrara, Pietro Monti, Fazio Cardano and, above all, Luca Pacioli. The knowledge of Leonardo’s position among and familiarity with such men early helped to spread the idea that he had been at the head of a regularly constituted academy of arts and sciences at Milan. The occurrence of the words “Achademia Leonardi Vinci” on certain engravings, done after his drawings, of geometric “knots” or puzzle-patterns (things for which we have already learned his partiality), helped to give currency to this impression not only in Italy but in the North, where the same engravings were copied by Albrecht Dürer. The whole notion has been proved mistaken. There existed no such academy at Milan, with Leonardo as president. The academies of the day represented the prevailing intellectual tendency of Renaissance humanism, namely, an absorbing enthusiasm for classic letters and for the transcendental speculations of Platonic and neo-Platonic mysticism, not unmixed with the traditions and practice of medieval alchemy, astrology and necromantics. For these last pursuits Leonardo had nothing but contempt. His many-sided and far-reaching studies in experimental science were mainly his own, conceived and carried out long in advance of his time, and in communion with only such more or less isolated spirits as were advancing along one or another of the same paths of knowledge. He learnt indeed on these lines eagerly wherever he could, and in learning imparted knowledge to others. But he had no school in any proper sense except his studio, and his only scholars were those who painted there. Of these one or two, as we have evidence, tried their hands at engraving; among their engravings were these “knots,” which, being things of use for decorative craftsmen to copy, were inscribed for identification, and perhaps for protection, as coming from the Achademia Leonardi Vinci; a trifling matter altogether, and quite unfit to sustain the elaborate structure of conjecture which has been built on it.

To return to the master: when he and Luca Pacioli left Milan in December 1499, their destination was Venice. They made a brief stay at Mantua, where Leonardo was graciously received by the duchess Isabella Gonzaga, the most cultured of the many cultured great ladies of her time, whose portrait he promised to paint on a future day; meantime he made the fine chalk drawing of her now at the Louvre. Arrived at Venice, he seems to have occupied himself chiefly with studies in mathematics and cosmography. In April the friends heard of the second and final overthrow of Ludovico il Moro, and at that news, giving up all idea of a return to Milan, moved on to Florence, which they found depressed both by internal troubles and by the protraction of the indecisive and inglorious war with Pisa. Here Leonardo undertook to paint an altar-piece for the Church of the Annunziata, Filippino Lippi, who had already received the commission, courteously retiring from it in his favour. A year passed by, and no progress had been made with the painting. Questions of physical geography and engineering engrossed him as much as ever. He writes to correspondents making enquiries about the tides in the Euxine and Caspian Seas. He reports for the information of the Arte de’ Mercanti on the precautions to be taken against a threatening landslip on the hill of S. Salvatore dell’ Osservanza. He submits drawings and models for the canalization and control of the waters of the Arno, and propounds, with compulsive eloquence and conviction, a scheme for transporting the Baptistery of St John, the “bel San Giovanni” of Dante, to another part of the city, and elevating it on a stately basement of marble. Meantime the Servite brothers of the Annunziata were growing impatient for the completion of their altar-piece. In April 1501 Leonardo had only finished the cartoon, and this all Florence flocked to see and admire. Isabella Gonzaga, who cherished the hope that he might be induced permanently to attach himself to the court of Mantua, wrote about this time to ask news of him, and to beg for a painting from him for her study, already adorned with masterpieces by the first hands of Italy, or at least for a “small Madonna, devout and sweet as is natural to him.” In reply her correspondent says that the master is wholly taken up with geometry and very impatient of the brush, but at the same time tells her all about his just completed cartoon for the Annunziata. The subject was the Virgin seated in the lap of St Anne, bending forward to hold her child who had half escaped from her embrace to play with a lamb upon the ground. The description answers exactly to the composition of the celebrated picture of the Virgin and St Anne at the Louvre. A cartoon of this composition in the Esterhazy collection at Vienna is held to be only a copy, and the original cartoon must be regarded as lost. But another of kindred though not identical motive has come down to us and is preserved in the Diploma Gallery at the Royal Academy. In this incomparable work St Anne, pointing upward with her left hand, smiles with an intense look of wondering, questioning, inward sweetness into the face of the Virgin, who in her turn smiles down upon her child as He leans from her lap to give the blessing to the little St John standing beside her. Evidently two different though nearly related designs had been maturing in Leonardo’s mind. A rough first sketch for the motive of the Academy cartoon is in the British Museum; one for the motive of the lost cartoon and of the Louvre picture is at Venice. No painting by Leonardo from the Academy cartoon exists, but in the Ambrosiana at Milan there is one by Luini, with the figure of St Joseph added. It remains a matter of debate whether the Academy cartoon or that shown by Leonardo at the Annunziata in 1501 was the earlier. The probabilities seem in favour of the Academy cartoon. This, whether done at Milan or at Florence, is in any case a typically perfect and harmonious example of the master’s Milanese manner; while in the other composition with the lamb the action and attitude of the Virgin are somewhat strained, and the original relation between her head and her mother’s, lovely both in design and expression, is lost.

In spite of the universal praise of his cartoon, Leonardo did not persevere with the picture, and the monks of the Annunziata had to give back the commission to Filippino Lippi, at whose death the task was completed by Perugino. It remains uncertain whether a small Madonna with distaff and spindle, which the correspondent of Isabella Gonzaga reports Leonardo as having begun for one Robertet, a favourite of the king of France, was ever finished. He painted one portrait, it is said, at this time, that of Ginevra Benci, a kinswoman, perhaps sister, of a youth Giovanni di Amerigo Benci, who shared his passion for cosmographical studies; and probably began another, the famous “La Gioconda,” which was only finished four years afterwards. The gonfalionere Soderini offered him in vain, to do with it what he would, the huge half-spoiled block of marble out of which Michelangelo three years later wrought his “David.” Isabella Gonzaga again begged, in an autograph letter, that she might have a painting by his hand, but her request was put off; he did her, however, one small service by examining and reporting on some jewelled vases, formerly the property of Lorenzo de’ Medici, which had been offered her. The importunate expectations of a masterpiece or masterpieces in painting or sculpture, which beset him on all hands in Florence, inclined him to take service again with some princely patron, if possible of a genius commensurate with his own, who would give him scope to carry out engineering schemes on a vast scale. Accordingly he suddenly took service, in the spring of 1502, with Cesare Borgia, duke of Valentinois, then almost within sight of the realization of his huge ambitions, and meanwhile occupied in consolidating his recent conquests in the Romagna. Between May 1502 and March 1503 Leonardo travelled as chief engineer to Duke Caesar over a great part of central Italy. Starting with a visit to Piombino, on the coast opposite Elba, he went by way of Siena to Urbino, where he made drawings and began works; was thence hastily summoned by way of Pesaro and Rimini to Cesena; spent two months between there and Cesenatico, projecting and directing canal and harbour works, and planning the restoration of the palace of Frederic II.; thence hurriedly joined his master, momentarily besieged by enemies at Imola; followed him probably to Sinigaglia and Perugia, through the whirl of storms and surprises, vengeances and treasons, which marked his course that winter, and finally, by way of Chiusi and Acquapendente, as far as Orvieto and probably to Rome, where Caesar arrived on the 14th of February 1503. The pope’s death and Caesar’s own downfall were not destined to be long delayed. But Leonardo apparently had already had enough of that service, and was back at Florence in March. He has left dated notes and drawings made at most of the stations we have named, besides a set of six large-scale maps drawn minutely with his own hand, and including nearly the whole territory of the Maremma, Tuscany and Umbria between the Apennines and the Tyrrhene Sea.

At Florence he was at last persuaded, on the initiative of Piero Soderini, to undertake for his native city a work of painting as great as that with which he had adorned Milan. This was a battle-piece to decorate one of the walls of the new council-hall in the palace of the signory. He chose an episode in the victory won by the generals of the republic in 1440 over Niccolo Piccinino near a bridge at Anghiari, in the upper valley of the Tiber. To the young Michelangelo was presently entrusted a rival battle-piece to be painted on another wall of the same apartment; he chose, as is well known, a surprise of the Florentine forces in the act of bathing near Pisa. About the same time Leonardo took part in the debate on the proper site for Michelangelo’s newly finished colossal “David,” and voted in favour of the Loggia dei Lanzi, against a majority which included Michelangelo himself. Neither Leonardo’s genius nor his noble manners could soften the rude and taunting temper of the younger man, whose style as an artist, nevertheless, in subjects both of tenderness and terror, underwent at this time a profound modification from Leonardo’s example.

In one of the sections of his projected Treatise on Painting, Leonardo has detailed at length, and obviously from his own observation, the pictorial aspects of a battle. His choice of subject in this instance was certainly not made from any love of warfare or indifference to its horrors. In his MSS. there occur almost as many trenchant sayings on life and human affairs as on art and natural law; and of war he has disposed in two words as a “bestial frenzy” (pazzia bestialissima). In his design for the Hall of Council he set himself to depict this frenzy at its fiercest. He chose the moment of a terrific struggle for the colours between the opposing sides; hence the work became commonly known as the “Battle of the Standard.” Judging by the accounts of those who saw it, and the fragmentary evidences which remain, the tumultuous medley of men and horses, and the expressions of martial fury and despair, must have been conceived and rendered with a mastery not less commanding than had been the looks and gestures of bodeful sorrow and soul’s perplexity among the quiet company on the convent wall at Milan. The place assigned to Leonardo for the preparation of his cartoon was the Sala del Papa at Santa Maria Novella. He for once worked steadily and unremittingly at his task. His accounts with the signory enable us to follow its progress step by step. He had finished the cartoon in less than two years (1504-1505), and when it was exhibited along with that of Michelangelo, the two rival works seemed to all men a new revelation of the powers of art, and served as a model and example of the students of that generation, as the frescoes of Masaccio in the Carmine had served to those of two generations earlier. The young Raphael, whose incomparable instinct for rhythmical design had been trained hitherto on subjects of holy quietude and rapt contemplation according to the traditions of Umbrian art, learnt from Leonardo’s example to apply the same instinct to themes of violent action and strife. From the same example Fra Bartolommeo and a crowd of other Florentine painters of the rising or risen generation took in like manner a new impulse. The master lost no time in proceeding to the execution of his design upon the mural surface; this time he had devised a technical method of which, after a preliminary trial in the Sala del Papa, he regarded the success as certain; the colours, whether tempera or other remains in doubt, were to be laid on a specially prepared ground, and then both colours and ground made secure upon the wall by the application of heat. When the central group was done the heat was applied, but it was found to take effect unequally; the colours in the upper part ran or scaled from the wall, and the result was a failure more or less complete. The unfinished and decayed painting remained for some fifty years on the wall, but after 1560 was covered over with new frescoes by Vasari. The cartoon did not last so long. After doing its work as the most inspiring of all examples for students it seems to have been cut up. When Leonardo left Italy for good in 1516 he is recorded to have left “the greater part of it” in deposit at the hospital of S. Maria Nuova, where he was accustomed also to deposit his moneys, and whence it seems before long to have disappeared. Our only existing memorials of the great work are a number of small pen-studies of fighting men and horses, three splendid studies in red chalk at Budapest for heads in the principal group, one head at Oxford copied by a contemporary of the size of the original cartoon (above life); a tiny sketch, also at Oxford, by Raphael after the principal group; an engraving done by Zacchia of Lucca in 1558 not after the original but after a copy; a 16th-century Flemish drawing of the principal group, and another, splendidly spirited, by Rubens, both copies of copies; with Edelinck’s fine engraving after the Rubens drawing.

During these years, 1503-1506, Leonardo also resumed (if it is true that he had already begun it before his travels with Cesare Borgia) the portrait of Madonna Lisa, the Neapolitan wife of Zanobi del Giocondo, and finished it to the last pitch of his powers. In this lady he had found a sitter whose face and smile possessed in a singular degree the haunting, enigmatic charm in which he delighted. He worked, it is said, at her portrait during some portion of four successive years, causing music to be played during the sittings that the rapt expression might not fade from off her countenance. The picture was bought afterwards by Francis I. for four thousand gold florins, and is now one of the glories of the Louvre. The richness of colouring on which Vasari expatiates has indeed flown, partly from injury, partly because in striving for effects of light and shade the painter was accustomed to model his figures on a dark ground, and in this as in his other oil-pictures the ground has to a large extent come through. Nevertheless, in its dimmed and blackened state, the portrait casts an irresistible spell alike by subtlety of expression, by refinement and precision of drawing, and by the romantic invention of its background. It has been the theme of endless critical rhapsodies, among which that of Pater is perhaps the most imaginative as it is the best known.

In the spring of 1506 Leonardo, moved perhaps by chagrin at the failure of his work in the Hall of Council, accepted a pressing invitation to Milan, from Charles d’Amboise, Maréchal de Chaumont, the lieutenant of the French king in Lombardy. The leave of absence granted to him by the signory on the request of the French viceroy was for three months only. The period was several times extended, at first grudgingly, Soderini complaining that Leonardo had treated the republic ill in the matter of the battle picture; whereupon the painter honourably offered to refund the money paid, an offer which the signory as honourably refused. Louis XII. sent messages urgently desiring that Leonardo should await his own arrival in Milan, having seen a small Madonna by him in France (probably that painted for Robertet) and hoping to obtain from him works of the same class and perhaps a portrait. The king arrived in May 1507, and soon afterwards Leonardo’s services were formally and amicably transferred from the signory of Florence to Louis, who gave him the title of painter and engineer in ordinary. In September of the same year troublesome private affairs called him to Florence. His father had died in 1504, apparently intestate. After his death Leonardo experienced unkindness from his seven half-brothers, Ser Piero’s legitimate sons. They were all much younger than himself. One of them, who followed his father’s profession, made himself the champion of the others in disputing Leonardo’s claim to his share, first in the paternal inheritance, and then in that which had been left to be divided between the brothers and sisters by an uncle. The litigation that ensued dragged on for several years, and forced upon Leonardo frequent visits to Florence and interruptions of his work at Milan, in spite of pressing letters to the authorities of the republic from Charles d’Amboise, from the French king himself, and from others of his powerful friends and patrons, begging that the proceedings might be accelerated. There are traces of work done during these intervals of compulsory residence at Florence. A sheet of sketches drawn there in 1508 shows the beginning of a Madonna now lost except in the form of copies, one of which (known as the “Madonna Litta”) is at St Petersburg, another in the Poldi-Pezzoli Museum at Milan. A letter from Leonardo to Charles d’Amboise in 1511, announcing the end of his law troubles, speaks of two Madonnas of different sizes that he means to bring with him to Milan. One was no doubt that just mentioned; can the other have been the Louvre “Virgin with St Anne and St John,” now at last completed from the cartoon exhibited in 1501? Meantime the master’s main home and business were at Milan. Few works of painting and none of sculpture (unless the unfulfilled commission for the Trivulzio monument belongs to this time) are recorded as occupying him during the seven years of his second residence in that city (1506-1513). He had attached to himself a new and devoted young friend and pupil of noble birth, Francesco Melzi. At the villa of the Melzi family at Vaprio, where Leonardo was a frequent visitor, a colossal Madonna on one of the walls is traditionally ascribed to him, but is rather the work of Sodoma or of Melzi himself working under the master’s eye. Another painter in the service of the French king, Jehan Perréal or Jehan de Paris, visited Milan, and consultations on technical points were held between him and Leonardo. But Leonardo’s chief practical employments were evidently on the continuation of his great hydraulic and irrigation works in Lombardy. His old trivial office of pageant-master and inventor of scientific toys was revived on the occasion of Louis XII.’s triumphal entry after the victory of Agnadello in 1509, and gave intense delight to the French retinue of the king. He was consulted on the construction of new choir-stalls for the cathedral. He laboured in the natural sciences as ardently as ever, especially at anatomy in company with the famous professor of Pavia, Marcantonio della Torre. To about this time, when he was approaching his sixtieth year, may belong the noble portrait-drawing of himself in red chalk at Turin. He looks too old for his years, but quite unbroken; the character of a veteran sage has fully imprinted itself on his countenance; the features are grand, clear and deeply lined, the mouth firmly set and almost stern, the eyes strong and intent beneath their bushy eyebrows, the hair flows untrimmed over his shoulders and commingles with a majestic beard.

Returning to Milan with his law-suits ended in 1511, Leonardo might have looked forward to an old age of contented labour, the chief task of which, had he had his will, would undoubtedly have been to put in order the vast mass of observations and speculations accumulated in his note-books, and to prepare some of them for publication. But as his star seemed rising that of his royal protector declined. The hold of the French on Lombardy was rudely shaken by hostile political powers, then confirmed again for a while by the victories of Gaston de Foix, and finally destroyed by the battle in which that hero fell under the walls of Ravenna. In June 1512 a coalition between Spain, Venice and the pope re-established the Sforza dynasty in power at Milan in the person of Ludovico’s son Massimiliano. This prince must have been familiar with Leonardo as a child, but perhaps resented the ready transfer of his allegiance to the French, and at any rate gave him no employment. Within a few months the ageing master uprooted himself from Milan, and moved with his chattels and retinue of pupils to Rome, into the service of the house that first befriended him, the Medici. The vast enterprises of Pope Julius II. had already made Rome the chief seat and centre of Italian art. The accession of Giulio de’ Medici in 1513 under the title of Leo X. raised on all hands hopes of still ampler and more sympathetic patronage. Leonardo’s special friend at the papal court was the pope’s youngest brother, Giuliano de’ Medici, a youth who combined dissipated habits with thoughtful culture and a genuine interest in arts and sciences. By his influence Leonardo and his train were accommodated with apartments in the Belvedere of the Vatican. But the conditions of the time and place proved adverse. The young generation held the field. Michelangelo and Raphael, who had both, as we have seen, risen to greatness partly on Leonardo’s shoulders, were fresh from the glory of their great achievements in the Sistine Chapel and the Stanze. Their rival factions hated each other, but both, especially the faction of Michelangelo, turned bitterly against the veteran newcomer. The pope, indeed, is said to have been delighted with Leonardo’s minor experiments and ingenuities in science, and especially by a kind of zoological toys which he had invented by way of pastime, as well as mechanical tricks played upon living animals. But for the master’s graver researches and projects he cared little, and was far more interested in the dreams of astrologers and alchemists. When Leonardo, having received a commission for a picture, was found distilling for himself a new medium of oils and herbs before he had begun the design, the pope was convinced, not quite unreasonably, that nothing serious would come of it. The only paintings positively recorded as done by him at Rome are two small panels for an official of the papal court, one of a child, the other of a Madonna, both now lost or unrecognized. To this time may also belong a lost Leda, standing upright with the god in swan’s guise at her side and the four children near their feet. This picture was at Fontainebleau in the 16th century and is known from several copies, the finest of them at the Borghese gallery, as well as from one or two preliminary sketches by the master himself and a small sketch copy by Raphael. A portrait of a Florentine lady, said to have been painted for Giuliano de’ Medici and seen afterwards in France, may also have been done at Rome; or may what we learn of this be only a confused account of the Monna Lisa? Tradition ascribes to Leonardo an attractive fresco of a Madonna with a donor in the convent of St Onofrio, but this seems to be clearly the work of Boltraffio. The only engineering works we hear of at this time are some on the harbour and defences of Cività Vecchia. On the whole the master in these Roman days found himself slighted for the first and only time in his life. He was, moreover, plagued by insubordination and malignity on the part of two German assistant craftsmen lodged in his apartments. Charges of impiety and body-snatching laid by these men in connexion with his anatomical studies caused the favour of the pope to be for a time withdrawn. After a stay of less than two years, Leonardo left Rome under the following circumstances. Louis XII. of France had died in the last days of 1514. His young and brilliant successor, Francis I., surprised Europe by making a sudden dash at the head of an army across the Alps to vindicate his rights in Italy. After much hesitation Leo X. in the summer of 1515 ordered Giuliano de’ Medici, as gonfalonier of the Church, to lead a papal force into the Emilia and watch the movements of the invader. Leonardo accompanied his protector on the march, and remained with the headquarters of the papal army at Piacenza when Giuliano fell ill and retired to Florence. After the battle of Marignano it was arranged that Francis and the pope should meet in December at Bologna. The pope, travelling by way of Florence and discussing there the great new scheme of the Laurentian library, entertained the idea of giving the commission to Leonardo; but Michelangelo came in hot haste from Rome and succeeded in securing it for himself. As the time for the meeting of the potentates at Bologna drew near, Leonardo proceeded thither from Piacenza, and in due course was presented to the king. Between the brilliant young sovereign and the grand old sage an immediate and strong sympathy sprang up; Leonardo accompanied Francis on his homeward march as far as Milan, and there determined to accept the royal invitation to France, where a new home was offered him with every assurance of honour and regard.

The remaining two and a half years of Leonardo’s life were spent at the Castle of Cloux near Amboise, which was assigned, with a handsome pension, to his use. The court came often to Amboise, and the king delighted in his company, declaring his knowledge both of the fine arts and of philosophy to be beyond those of all mortal men. In the spring of 1518 Leonardo had occasion to exercise his old talents as a festival-master when the dauphin was christened and a Medici-Bourbon marriage celebrated. He drew the designs for a new palace at Amboise, and was much engaged with the project of a great canal to connect the Loire and Saône. An ingenious attempt has been made to prove, in the absence of records, that the famous spiral staircase at Blois was also of his designing.

Among his visitors was a fellow-countryman, Cardinal Louis of Aragon, whose secretary has left an account of the day. Leonardo, it seems, was suffering from some form of slight paralysis which impaired his power of hand. But he showed the cardinal three pictures, the portrait of a Florentine lady done for Giuliano de’ Medici (the Gioconda?), the Virgin in the lap of St Anne (the Louvre picture; finished at Florence or Milan 1507-1513?), and a youthful John the Baptist. The last, which may have been done since he settled in France, is the darkened and partly repainted, but still powerful and haunting half-length figure in the Louvre, with the smile of inward ravishment and the prophetic finger beckoning skyward like that of St Anne in the Academy cartoon. Of the “Pomona” mentioned by Lomazzo as a work of the Amboise time his visitor says nothing, nor yet of the Louvre “Bacchus,” which tradition ascribes to Leonardo but which is clearly pupil’s work. Besides pictures, the master seems also to have shown and explained to his visitors some of his vast store of notes and observations on anatomy and physics. He kept hoping to get some order among his papers, the accumulation of more than forty years, and perhaps to give the world some portion of the studies they contained. But his strength was nearly exhausted. On Easter Eve 1519, feeling that the end was near, he made his will. It made provision, as became a great servant of the most Christian king, for masses to be said and candles to be offered in three different churches of Amboise, first among them that of St Florentin, where he desired to be buried, as well as for sixty poor men to serve as torch-bearers at his funeral. Vasari babbles of a death-bed conversion and repentance. But Leonardo had never been either a friend or an enemy of the Church. Sometimes, indeed, he denounces fiercely enough the arts and pretensions of priests; but no one has embodied with such profound spiritual insight some of the most vital moments of the Christian story. His insatiable researches into natural fact brought upon him among the vulgar some suspicion of practising those magic arts which of all things he scouted and despised. The bent of his mind was all towards the teachings of experience and against those of authority, and laws of nature certainly occupied far more of his thoughts than dogmas of religion; but when he mentions these it is with respect as throwing light on the truth of things from a side which was not his own. His conformity at the end had in it nothing contradictory of his past. He received the sacraments of the Church and died on the 2nd of May 1519. King Francis, then at his court of St Germain-en-Laye, is said to have wept for the loss of such a servant; that he was present beside the death-bed and held the dying painter in his arms is a familiar but an untrue tale. After a temporary sepulture elsewhere his remains were transported on the 12th of August to the cloister of St Florentin according to his wish. He left all his MSS. and apparently all the contents of his studio, with other gifts, to the devoted Melzi, whom he named executor; to Salai and to his servant Battista Villanis a half each of his vineyard outside Milan; gifts of money and clothes to his maid Maturina; one of money to the poor of the hospital in Amboise; and to his unbrotherly half-brothers a sum of four hundred ducats lying to his credit at Florence.

History tells of no man gifted in the same degree as Leonardo was at once for art and science. In art he was an inheritor and perfecter, born in a day of great and many-sided endeavours on which he put the crown, surpassing both predecessors and contemporaries. In science, on the other hand, he was a pioneer, working wholly for the future, and in great part alone. That the two stupendous gifts should in some degree neutralize each other was inevitable. No imaginable strength of any single man would have sufficed to carry out a hundredth part of what Leonardo essayed. The mere attempt to conquer the kingdom of light and shade for the art of painting was destined to tax the skill of generations, and is perhaps not wholly and finally accomplished yet. Leonardo sought to achieve that conquest and at the same time to carry the old Florentine excellences of linear drawing and psychological expression to a perfection of which other men had not dreamed. The result, though marvellous in quality, is in quantity lamentably meagre. Knowing and doing allured him equally, and in art, which consists in doing, his efforts were often paralysed by his strained desire to know. The thirst for knowledge had first been aroused in him by the desire of perfecting the images of beauty and power which it was his business to create.

Thence there grew upon him the passion of knowledge for its own sake. In the splendid balance of his nature the Virgilian longing, rerum cognoscere causas, could never indeed wholly silence the call to exercise his active powers. But the powers he cared most to exercise ceased by degree to be those of imaginative creation, and came to be those of turning to practical human use the mastery which his studies had taught him over the forces of nature. In science he was the first among modern men to set himself most of those problems which unnumbered searchers of later generations have laboured severally or in concert to solve. Florence had had other sons of comprehensive genius, artistic and mechanical, Leon Battista Alberti perhaps the chief. But the more the range and character of Leonardo’s studies becomes ascertained the more his greatness dwarfs them all. A hundred years before Bacon, say those who can judge best, he showed a firmer grasp of the principles of experimental science than Bacon showed, fortified by a far wider range of actual experiment and observation. Not in his actual conclusions, though many of these point with surprising accuracy in the direction of truths established by later generations, but in the soundness, the wisdom, the tenacity of his methods lies his great title to glory. Had the Catholic reaction not fatally discouraged the pursuit of the natural sciences in Italy, had Leonardo even left behind him any one with zeal and knowledge enough to extract from the mass of his MSS. some portion of his labours in those sciences and give them to the world, an incalculable impulse would have been given to all those enquiries by which mankind has since been striving to understand the laws of its being and control the conditions of its environment,—to mathematics and astronomy, to mechanics, hydraulics, and physics generally, to geology, geography, and cosmology, to anatomy and the sciences of life. As it was, these studies of Leonardo—“studies intense of strong and stern delight”—seemed to his trivial followers and biographers merely his whims and fancies, ghiribizzi, things to be spoken of slightingly and with apology. The MSS., with the single exception of some of those relating to painting, lay unheeded and undivulged until the present generation; and it is only now that the true range of Leonardo’s powers is beginning to be fully discerned.

So much for the intellectual side of Leonardo’s character and career. As a moral being we are less able to discern what he was like. The man who carried in his brain so many images of subtle beauty, as well as so much of the hidden science of the future, must have lived spiritually, in the main, alone. Of things communicable he was at the same time, as we have said, communicative—a genial companion, a generous and loyal friend, ready and eloquent of discourse, impressing all with whom he was brought in contact by the power and the charm of genius, and inspiring fervent devotion and attachment in friends and pupils. We see him living on terms of constant affection with his father, and in disputes with his brothers not the aggressor but the sufferer from aggression. We see him full of tenderness to animals, a virtue not common in Italy in spite of the example of St Francis; open-handed in giving, not eager in getting—“poor,” he says, “is the man of many wants”; not prone to resentment—“the best shield against injustice is to double the cloak of long-suffering”; zealous in labour above all men—“as a day well spent gives joyful sleep, so does a life well spent give joyful death.” With these instincts and maxims, and with his strength, granting it almost more than human, spent ever tunnelling in abstruse mines of knowledge, his moral experience is not likely to have been deeply troubled. In religion, he regarded the faith of his age and country at least with imaginative sympathy and intellectual acquiescence, if no more. On the political storms which shook his country and drove him from one employment to another, he seems to have looked not with the passionate participation of a Dante or a Michelangelo but rather with the serene detachment of a Goethe. In matters of the heart, if any consoling or any disturbing passion played a great part in his life, we do not know it; we know only (apart from a few passing shadows cast by calumny and envy) of affectionate and dignified relations with friends, patrons and pupils, of public and private regard mixed in the days of his youth with dazzled admiration, and in those of his age with something of reverential awe.

The Drawings of Leonardo.—These are among the greatest treasures ever given to the world by the human spirit expressing itself in pen and pencil. Apart from the many hundreds of illustrative pen-sketches scattered through his autobiographic and scientific MSS., the principal collection is at Windsor Castle (partly derived from the Arundel collection); others of importance are in the British Museum; at Christ Church, Oxford; in the Louvre, at Chantilly, in the Uffizi, the Venice Academy, the Royal Library at Turin, the Museum of Budapest, and in the collections of M. Bonnat, Mrs Mond, and Captain Holford. Leonardo’s chief implements were pen, silver-point, and red and black chalk (red chalk especially). In silver-point there are many beautiful drawings of his earlier time, and some of his later; but of the charming heads of women and young men in this material attributed to him in various collections, comparatively few are his own work, the majority being drawings in his spirit by his pupils Ambrogio Preda or Boltraffio. Leonardo appears to have been left-handed. There is some doubt on the point; but a contemporary and intimate friend, Luca Pacioli, speaks of his “ineffable left hand”; all the best of his drawings are shaded downward from left to right, which would be the readiest way for a left-handed man; and his habitual eccentric practice of writing from right to left is much more likely to have been due to natural left-handedness than to any desire of mystery or concealment. A full critical discussion and catalogue of the extant drawings of Leonardo are to be found in Berenson’s Drawings of the Florentine Painters.

The Writings of Leonardo.—The only printed book bearing Leonardo’s name until the recent issues of transcripts from his MSS. was the celebrated Treatise on Painting (Trattato della pittura, Traité de la peinture). This consists of brief didactic chapters, or more properly paragraphs, of practical direction or critical remark on all the branches and conditions of a painter’s practice. The original MS. draft of Leonardo has been lost, though a great number of notes for it are scattered through the various extant volumes of his MSS. The work has been printed in two different forms; one of these is an abridged version consisting of 365 sections; the first edition of it was published in Paris in 1551, by Raphael Dufresne, from a MS. which he found in the Barberini library; the last, translated into English by J. F. Rigaud, in London, 1877. The other is a more extended version, in 912 sections, divided into eight books; this was printed in 1817 by Guglielmo Manzi at Rome, from two MSS. which he had discovered in the Vatican library; a German translation from the same MS. has been edited by G. H. Ludwig in Eitelberger’s series of Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte (Vienna, 1882; Stuttgart, 1885). On the history of the book in general see Max Jordan, Das Malerbuch des Leonardo da Vinci (Leipzig, 1873). The unknown compilers of the Vatican MSS. must have had before them much more of Leonardo’s original text than is now extant. Only about a quarter of the total number of paragraphs are identical with passages to be found in the master’s existing autograph note-books. It is indeed doubtful whether Leonardo himself ever completed the MS. treatise (or treatises) on painting and kindred subjects mentioned by Fra Luca Pacioli and by Vasari, and probable that the form and order, and perhaps some of the substance, of the Trattato as we have it was due to compilers and not to the master himself.

In recent years a whole body of scholars and editors have been engaged in giving to the world the texts of Leonardo’s existing MSS. The history of these is too complicated to be told here in any detail. Francesco Melzi (d. 1570) kept the greater part of his master’s bequest together as a sacred trust as long as he lived, though even in his time some MSS. on the art of painting seem to have passed into other hands. But his descendants suffered the treasure to be recklessly dispersed. The chief agents in their dispersal were the Doctor Orazio Melzi who possessed them in the last quarter of the 16th century; the members of a Milanese family called Mazzenta, into whose hands they passed in Orazio Melzi’s lifetime; and the sculptor Pompeo Leoni, who at one time entertained the design of procuring their presentation to Philip II. of Spain, and who cut up a number of the note-books to form the great miscellaneous single volume called the Codice Atlantico, now at Milan. This volume, with a large proportion of the total number of other Leonardo MSS. then existing, passed into the hands of a Count Arconati, who presented them to the Ambrosian library at Milan in 1636. In the meantime the earl of Arundel had made a vain attempt to purchase one of these volumes (the Codice Atlantico?) at a great price for the king of England. Some stray parts of the collection, including the MSS. now at Windsor, did evidently come into Lord Arundel’s possession, and the history of some other parts can be followed; while much, it is evident, was lost for good. In 1796 Napoleon swept away to Paris, along with the other art treasures of Italy, the whole of the Leonardo MSS. at the Ambrosiana: only the Codice Atlantico was afterwards restored, the other volumes remaining the property of the Institut de France. These also have had their adventures, two of them having been stolen by Count Libri and passed temporarily into the collection of Lord Ashburnham, whence they were in recent years made over again to the Institute. The first important step towards a better knowledge of the MSS. was made by the beginning, in 1880, of the great series of publications from the MSS. of the Institut de France undertaken by C. Ravaisson-Mollien; the next by the publication in 1883 of Dr J. P. Richter’s Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci (see Bibliography): this work included, besides a history and analytical index of the MSS., facsimiles of a number of selected pages containing matter of autobiographical, artistic, or literary interest, with transcripts and translations of their MS. contexts. Since then much progress has been made in the publication of the complete MSS., scientific and other, whether with adequate critical apparatus or in the form of mere facsimile without transliteration or comment.

A brief statement follows of the present distribution of the several MSS. and of the form in which they are severally published:—

England.—Windsor: Nine MSS., chiefly on anatomy, published entire in simple facsimile by Rouveyre (Paris, 1901); partially, with transliterations and introduction by Piumati and Sabachnikoff (Paris, 1898, foll.); British Museum: one MS., miscellaneous, unpublished; Victoria and Albert Museum: ten note-books bound in 3 vols.; facsimile by Rouveyre, Holkham (collection of Lord Leicester), 1 vol., on hydraulics and the action of water; published in facsimile with transliteration and notes by Gerolamo Calvi. France.—Institut de France: seventeen MSS., all published with transliteration and notes by C. Ravaisson-Mollien (6 vols., Paris, 1880-1891). Italy.—Milan, Ambrosiana: the Codice Atlantico, the huge miscellany, of vital importance for the study of the master, put together by Pompeo Leoni; published in facsimile, with transliteration, by the Accademia dei Lincei (1894, foll.); Milan: collection of Count Trivulzio; 1 vol., miscellaneous; published and edited by L. Beltrami (1892); Rome: collection of Count Marszolini; Treatise on the Flight of Birds, published and edited by Piumati and Sabachnikoff (Paris, 1492).

Bibliography.—The principal authorities are:—“Il libro di Antonio Billi,” edited from MS. by G. de Fabriazy in Archivio Storico Ital. ser. v. vol. 7; “Breve vita di Leonardo da Vinci, scritto da un adnonimo del 1500” (known as the Anonimo Gaddiano), printed by G. Milanesi in Archivio Storico Ital. t. xvi. (1872), translated with notes by H. P. Horne in series published by the Unicorn Library (1903); Paolo Giovio, “Leonardi Vincii vita,” in his Elogia, printed in Tiraboschi, Storia della Lett. Ital. t. vii. pt. 4, and in Classici Italiani, vol. 314; Vasari, in his celebrated Lives of the Painters (1st ed., Florence, 1550; 2nd ed. ibid. 1568; ed. Milanesi, with notes and supplements, 1878-1885); Sabba da Castiglione, Ricordi (Venice, 1565); G. P. Lomazzo, Trattato dell’ arte della pittura, &c. (Milan, 1584-1585); Id., Idea del tempio della pittura (Milan, 1591); Le Père Dan, Le Trésor ... de Fontainebleau (1642); J. B. Venturi, Essai sur les ouvrages physico-mathématiques de L. da V. (Paris, 1797); C. Amoretti, Memorie storiche sulla vita, &c. di L. da V. (Milan, 1804), a work which laid the foundation of all future researches; Giuseppe Bossi, Del Cenacolo di L. da V. (Milan, 1810); C. Fumagalli, Scuola di Leonardo da Vinci (1811); Gaye, Carteggia d’artisti (1839-1841); G. Uzielli, Ricerche intorno a L. da V., series 1, 2 (Florence, 1872; Rome, 1884; series 1 revised, Turin, 1896), documentary researches of the first importance for the study; C. L. Calvi, Notizie dei principali professori di belle arti (Milan, 1869); Arsène Houssaye, Histoire de L. de V. (Paris, 1869 and 1876, an agreeable literary biography of the pre-critical kind); Mrs Heaton, Life of L. da V. (London, 1872), a work also made obsolete by recent research; Hermann Grothe, L. da V. als Ingenieur und Philosoph (Berlin, 1874); A. Marks, the S. Anne of L. da V. (London, 1882); J. P. Richter, The Literary Works of L. da V. (2 vols., London, 1883), this is the very important and valuable history of and selection from the texts mentioned above under MSS.; Ch. Ravaisson-Mollien, Les Écrits de L. da V. (Paris, 1881); Paul Müller Walde, L. da V., Lebensskizze und Forschungen (Munich, 1889-1890); Id., “Beiträge zur Kenntniss des L. da V.,” in Jahrbuch der k. Preussischen Kunstsammlungen (1897-1899), the first immature and incomplete, the second of high value: the whole life of this writer has been devoted to the study of L. da V., but it is uncertain whether the vast mass of material collected by him will ever take shape or see the light; G. Gronau, L. da V. (London, 1902); Bernhard Berenson, The Drawings of the Florentine Painters (London, 1903); Edmondo Solmi, Studi sulla filosofia naturale di L. da V. (Modena, 1898); Id., Leonardo (Florence, 1st ed. 1900, 2nd ed. 1907; this last edition of Solmi’s work is by far the most complete and satisfactory critical biography of the master which yet exists); A. Rosenberg, L. da V., in Knackfuss’s series of art biographies (Leipzig, 1898); Gabriel Séailles, L. da V. l’artiste et le savant (1st ed. 1892, 2nd ed. 1906), a lucid and careful general estimate of great value, especially in reference to Leonardo’s relations to modern science; Edward McCurdy, L. da V., in Bell’s “Great Masters” series (1904 and 1907), a very sound and trustworthy summary of the master’s career as an artist; Id., L. da V.’s Note-Books (1908), a selection from the passages of chief general interest in the master’s MSS., very well chosen, arranged, and translated, with a useful history of the MSS. prefixed, Le Vicende del Cenacolo di L. da V. nel secolo XIX. (Milan, 1906), an official account of the later history and vicissitudes of the “Last Supper” previous to its final repair; Luca Beltrami, Il Castello di Milano (1894); Id., L. da V. et la Sala dell’ Asse (1902); Id., “Il Cenacolo di Leonardo,” in Raccolta Vinciana (Milan, 1908), the official account of the successful work of repair carried out by Signor Cavenaghi in the preceding years; Woldemar von Seidlitz, Leonardo da Vinci, der Wendepunkt der Renaissance (2 vols., 1909), a comprehensive and careful work by an accomplished and veteran critic, inclined to give perhaps an excessive share in the reputed works of Leonardo to a single pupil, Ambrogio Preda. It seems needless to give references to the voluminous discussion in newspapers and periodicals concerning the authenticity of a wax bust of Flora acquired in 1909 for the Berlin Museum and unfortunately ascribed to Leonardo da Vinci, its real author having been proved by external and internal evidence to be the Englishman Richard Cockle Lucas, and its date 1846.

(S. C.)

LEONARDO OF PISA (Leonardus Pisanus or Fibonacci), Italian mathematician of the 13th century. Of his personal history few particulars are known. His father was called Bonaccio, most probably a nickname with the ironical meaning of “a good, stupid fellow,” while to Leonardo himself another nickname, Bigollone (dunce, blockhead), seems to have been given. The father was secretary in one of the numerous factories erected on the southern and eastern coasts of the Mediterranean by the warlike and enterprising merchants of Pisa. Leonardo was educated at Bugia, and afterwards toured the Mediterranean. In 1202 he was again in Italy and published his great work, Liber abaci, which probably procured him access to the learned and refined court of the emperor Frederick II. Leonardo certainly was in relation with some persons belonging to that circle when he published in 1220 another more extensive work, De practica geometriae, which he dedicated to the imperial astronomer Dominicus Hispanus. Some years afterwards (perhaps in 1228) Leonardo dedicated to the well-known astrologer Michael Scott the second edition of his Liber abaci, which was printed with Leonardo’s other works by Prince Bald. Boncompagni (Rome, 1857-1862, 2 vols.). The other works consist of the Practica geometriae and some most striking papers of the greatest scientific importance, amongst which the Liber quadratorum may be specially signalized. It bears the notice that the author wrote it in 1225, and in the introduction Leonardo tells us the occasion of its being written. Dominicus had presented Leonardo to Frederick II. The presentation was accompanied by a kind of mathematical performance, in which Leonardo solved several hard problems proposed to him by John of Palermo, an imperial notary, whose name is met with in several documents dated between 1221 and 1240. The methods which Leonardo made use of in solving those problems fill the Liber quadratorum, the Flos, and a Letter to Magister Theodore. All these treatises seem to have been written nearly at the same period, and certainly before the publication of the second edition of the Liber abaci, in which the Liber quadratorum is expressly mentioned. We know nothing of Leonardo’s fate after he issued that second edition.

Leonardo’s works are mainly developments of the results obtained by his predecessors; the influences of Greek, Arabian, and Indian mathematicians may be clearly discerned in his methods. In his Practica geometriae plain traces of the use of the Roman agrimensores are met with; in his Liber abaci old Egyptian problems reveal their origin by the reappearance of the very numbers in which the problem is given, though one cannot guess through what channel they came to Leonardo’s knowledge. Leonardo cannot be regarded as the inventor of that very great variety of truths for which he mentions no earlier source.

The Liber abaci, which fills 459 printed pages, contains the most perfect methods of calculating with whole numbers and with fractions, practice, extraction of the square and cube roots, proportion, chain rule, finding of proportional parts, averages, progressions, even compound interest, just as in the completest mercantile arithmetics of our days. They teach further the solution of problems leading to equations of the first and second degree, to determinate and indeterminate equations, not by single and double position only, but by real algebra, proved by means of geometric constructions, and including the use of letters as symbols for known numbers, the unknown quantity being called res and its square census.

The second work of Leonardo, his Practica geometriae (1220) requires readers already acquainted with Euclid’s planimetry, who are able to follow rigorous demonstrations and feel the necessity for them. Among the contents of this book we simply mention a trigonometrical chapter, in which the words sinus versus arcus occur, the approximate extraction of cube roots shown more at large than in the Liber abaci, and a very curious problem, which nobody would search for in a geometrical work, viz.—To find a square number remaining so after the addition of 5. This problem evidently suggested the first question, viz.—To find a square number which remains a square after the addition and subtraction of 5, put to our mathematician in presence of the emperor by John of Palermo, who, perhaps, was quite enough Leonardo’s friend to set him such problems only as he had himself asked for. Leonardo gave as solution the numbers 1197⁄144, 1697⁄144, and 697⁄144,—the squares of 35⁄12, 41⁄12 and 27⁄12; and the method of finding them is given in the Liber quadratorum. We observe, however, that this kind of problem was not new. Arabian authors already had found three square numbers of equal difference, but the difference itself had not been assigned in proposing the question. Leonardo’s method, therefore, when the difference was a fixed condition of the problem, was necessarily very different from the Arabian, and, in all probability, was his own discovery. The Flos of Leonardo turns on the second question set by John of Palermo, which required the solution of the cubic equation x3 + 2x2 + 10x = 20. Leonardo, making use of fractions of the sexagesimal scale, gives x = 10 22i 7ii 42iii 33iv 4v 40vi, after having demonstrated, by a discussion founded on the 10th book of Euclid, that a solution by square roots is impossible. It is much to be deplored that Leonardo does not give the least intimation how he found his approximative value, outrunning by this result more than three centuries. Genocchi believes Leonardo to have been in possession of a certain method called regula aurea by H. Cardan in the 16th century, but this is a mere hypothesis without solid foundation. In the Flos equations with negative values of the unknown quantity are also to be met with, and Leonardo perfectly understands the meaning of these negative solutions. In the Letter to Magister Theodore indeterminate problems are chiefly worked, and Leonardo hints at his being able to solve by a general method any problem of this kind not exceeding the first degree.

As for the influence he exercised on posterity, it is enough to say that Luca Pacioli, about 1500, in his celebrated Summa, leans so exclusively to Leonardo’s works (at that time known in manuscript only) that he frankly acknowledges his dependence on them, and states that wherever no other author is quoted all belongs to Leonardus Pisanus.

Fibonacci’s series is a sequence of numbers such that any term is the sum of the two preceding terms; also known as Lamé’s series.

(M. Ca.)

LEONCAVALLO, RUGGIERO (1858- ), Italian operatic composer, was born at Naples and educated for music at the conservatoire. After some years spent in teaching and in ineffectual attempts to obtain the production of more than one opera, his Pagliacci was performed at Milan in 1892 with immediate success; and next year his Medici was also produced there. But neither the latter nor Chatterton (1896)—both early works—obtained any favour; and it was not till La Bohème was performed in 1897 at Venice that his talent obtained public confirmation. Subsequent operas by Leoncavallo were Zaza (1900), and Der Roland (1904). In all these operas he was his own librettist.

LEONIDAS, king of Sparta, the seventeenth of the Agiad line. He succeeded, probably in 489 or 488 B.C., his half-brother Cleomenes, whose daughter Gorgo he married. In 480 he was sent with about 7000 men to hold the pass of Thermopylae against the army of Xerxes. The smallness of the force was, according to a current story, due to the fact that he was deliberately going to his doom, an oracle having foretold that Sparta could be saved only by the death of one of its kings: in reality it seems rather that the ephors supported the scheme half-heartedly, their policy being to concentrate the Greek forces at the Isthmus. Leonidas repulsed the frontal attacks of the Persians, but when the Malian Ephialtes led the Persian general Hydarnes by a mountain track to the rear of the Greeks he divided his army, himself remaining in the pass with 300 Spartiates, 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans. Perhaps he hoped to surround Hydarnes’ force: if so, the movement failed, and the little Greek army, attacked from both sides, was cut down to a man save the Thebans, who are said to have surrendered. Leonidas fell in the thickest of the fight; his head was afterwards cut off by Xerxes’ order and his body crucified. Our knowledge of the circumstances is too slight to enable us to judge of Leonidas’s strategy, but his heroism and devotion secured him an almost unique place in the imagination not only of his own but also of succeeding times.

See Herodotus v. 39-41, vii. 202-225, 238, ix. 10; Diodorus xi. 4-11; Plutarch, Apophthegm. Lacon.; de malignitate Herodoti, 28-33; Pausanias i. 13, iii. 3, 4; Isocrates, Paneg. 92; Lycurgus, c. Leocr. 110, 111; Strabo i. 10, ix. 429; Aelian, Var. hist. iii. 25; Cicero, Tusc. disput. i. 42, 49; de Finibus, ii. 30; Cornelius Nepos, Themistocles, 3; Valerius Maximus iii. 2; Justin ii. 11. For modern criticism on the battle of Thermopylae see G. B. Grundy, The Great Persian War (1901); G. Grote, History of Greece, part ii., c. 40; E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, iii., §§ 219, 220; G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, 2nd ed., ii. 666-688; J. B. Bury, “The Campaign of Artemisium and Thermopylae,” in British School Annual, ii. 83 seq.; J. A. R. Munro, “Some Observations on the Persian Wars, II.,” in Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxii. 294-332.

(M. N. T.)

LEONTIASIS OSSEA, a rare disease characterized by an overgrowth of the facial and cranial bones. The common form is that in which one or other maxilla is affected, its size progressively increasing both regularly and irregularly, and thus encroaching on the cavities of the orbit, the mouth, the nose and its accessory sinuses. Exophthalmos gradually develops, going on later to a complete loss of sight due to compression of the optic nerve by the overgrowth of bone. There may also be interference with the nasal respiration and with the taking of food. In the somewhat less common form of this rare disease the overgrowth of bone affects all the cranial bones as well as those of the face, the senses being lost one by one and death finally resulting from cerebral pressure. There is no treatment other than exposing the overgrown bone, and chipping away pieces, or excising entirely where possible.

LEONTINI (mod. Lentini), an ancient town in the south-east of Sicily, 22 m. N.N.W. of Syracuse direct, founded by Chalcidians from Naxos in 729 B.C. It is almost the only Greek settlement not on the coast, from which it is 6 m. distant. The site, originally held by the Sicels, was seized by the Greeks owing to its command of the fertile plain on the north. It was reduced to subjection in 498 B.C. by Hippocrates of Gela, and in 476 Hieron of Syracuse established here the inhabitants of Catana and Naxos. Later on Leontini regained its independence, but in its efforts to retain it, the intervention of Athens was more than once invoked. It was mainly the eloquence of Gorgias (q.v.) of Leontini which led to the abortive Athenian expedition of 427. In 422 Syracuse supported the oligarchs against the people and received them as citizens, Leontini itself being forsaken. This led to renewed Athenian intervention, at first mainly diplomatic; but the exiles of Leontini joined the envoys of Segesta in persuading Athens to undertake the great expedition of 415. After its failure, Leontini became subject to Syracuse once more (see Strabo vi. 272). Its independence was guaranteed by the treaty of 405 between Dionysius and the Carthaginians, but it very soon lost it again. It was finally stormed by M. Claudius Marcellus in 214 B.C. In Roman times it seems to have been of small importance. It was destroyed by the Saracens A.D. 848, and almost totally ruined by the earthquake of 1698. The ancient city is described by Polybius (vii. 6) as lying in a bottom between two hills, and facing north. On the western side of this bottom ran a river with a row of houses on its western bank under the hill. At each end was a gate, the northern leading to the plain, the southern, at the upper end, to Syracuse. There was an acropolis on each side of the valley, which lies between precipitous hills with flat tops, over which buildings had extended. The eastern hill still has considerable remains of a strongly fortified medieval castle, in which some writers are inclined (though wrongly) to recognize portions of Greek masonry. See G. M. Columba, in Archeologia di Leontinoi (Palermo, 1891), reprinted from Archivio Storico Siciliano, xi.; P. Orsi in Römische Mitteilungen (1900), 61 seq. Excavations were made in 1899 in one of the ravines in a Sicel necropolis of the third period; explorations in the various Greek cemeteries resulted in the discovery of some fine bronzes, notably a fine bronze lebes, now in the Berlin museum.

(T. As.)

As a fact there are two flat valleys, up both of which the modern Lentini extends; and hence there is difficulty in fitting Polybius’s account to the site.

LEONTIUS, theological writer, born at Byzantium, flourished during the 6th century. He is variously styled Byzantinus, Hierosolymitanus (as an inmate of the monastery of St Saba near Jerusalem) and Scholasticus (the first “schoolman,” as the introducer of the Aristotelian definitions into theology; according to others, he had been an advocate, a special meaning of the word scholasticus). He himself states that in his early years he belonged to a Nestorian community. Nothing else is known of his life; he is frequently confused with others of the same name, and it is uncertain which of the works bearing the name Leontius are really by him. Most scholars regard as genuine the polemical treatises Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, Contra Nestorianos, Contra Monophysitas, Contra Severum (patriarch of Antioch); and the Σχόλια, generally called De Sectis. An essay Adversus fraudes Apollinaristarum and two homilies are referred to other hands, the homilies to a Leontius, presbyter of Constantinople.

Collected works in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, lxxxvi.; for the various questions connected with Leontius see F. Loops, Das Leben und die polemischen Werke des Leontios von Byzanz (Leipzig, 1887); W. Rügamer, Leontius von Byzanz (1894); V. Ermoni, De Leontio Byzantino (Paris, 1895); C. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (1897); J. P. Junglas, Leontius von Byzanz (1908). For other persons of the name see Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca (ed. Harles), viii. 323.

LEOPARD, Pard or Panther (Felis pardus), the largest spotted true cat of the Old World, with the exception of the snow-leopard, which is, however, inferior in point of size to the largest leopard. (See Carnivora and Snow-Leopard.) Leopards, known in India as cheeta (chita), are characterized by the rosette-like form of the black spots on the greater part of the body, and the absence of a central spot from each rosette. Towards the head and on the limbs the spots tend to become solid, but there is great local variation in regard to their form and arrangement. In the Indian leopard, the true Felis pardus, the spots are large and rosette-like, and the same is the case with the long-haired Persian leopard (F. pardus tulliana). On the other hand the heavily built and thick-haired Manchurian F. p. villosa has more consolidated spots. African leopards, again, to one of which the name F. p. leopardus is applicable, show a decided tendency to a breaking-up of the spots; West African animals being much darker-coloured than those from the east side of the continent.

Both as regards structure and habits, the leopard may be reckoned as one of the more typical representatives of the genus Felis, belonging to that section in which the hyoid bone is loosely connected with the skull, owing to imperfect ossification of its anterior arch, and the pupil of the eye when contracted under the influence of light is circular, not linear as in the smaller cats.

The size of leopards varies greatly, the head and body usually measuring from 3½ to 4½ ft. in length, and the tail from 2½ to 3 ft., but some specimens exceed these limits, while the Somali leopard (F. p. nanopardus) falls considerably short of them. The ground-colour of the fur varies from a pale fawn to a rufous buff, graduating in the Indian race into pure white on the under-parts and inside of the limbs. Generally speaking, the spots on the under parts and limbs are simple and blacker than those on the other parts of the body. The bases of the ears behind are black, the tips buff. The upper side of the tail is buff, spotted with broken rings like the back, its under surface white with simple spots. The hair of the cubs is longer than that of the adults, its ground-colour less bright, and its spots less distinct. Perfectly black leopards, which in certain lights show the characteristic markings on the fur, are not uncommon, and are examples of melanism, occurring as individual variations, sometimes in one cub out of a litter of which the rest are normally coloured, and therefore not indicating a distinct race, much less a species. These are met with chiefly in southern Asia; melanism among African leopards taking the form of an excessive breaking-up of the spots, which finally show a tendency to coalesce.

In habits the leopard resembles the other large cat-like animals, yielding to none in the ferocity of its disposition. It is exceedingly quick in its movements, but seizes its prey by waiting in ambush or stealthily approaching to within springing distance, when it suddenly rushes upon it and tears it to ground with its powerful claws and teeth. It preys upon almost any animal it can overcome, such as antelopes, deer, sheep, goats, monkeys, peafowl, and has a special liking for dogs. It not unfrequently attacks human beings in India, chiefly children and old women, but instances have been known of a leopard becoming a regular “man-eater.” When favourable opportunities occur, it often kills many more victims than it can devour at once, either to gratify its propensity for killing or for the sake of their fresh blood. It generally inhabits woody districts, and can climb trees with facility when hunted, but usually lives on or near the ground, among rocks, bushes and roots and low branches of large trees.

The geographical range of the leopard embraces practically all Africa, and Asia from Palestine to China and Manchuria, inclusive of Ceylon and the great Malay Islands as far as Java. Fossil bones and teeth, indistinguishable from those of existing leopards, have been found in cave-deposits of Pleistocene age in Spain, France, Germany and England.

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

The name (Late Lat. leopardus, Late Gr. λεόπαρδος) was given by the ancients to an animal supposed to have been a cross between a lion (Lat. leo, Gr. λὲων) and a pard (Gr. πάρδος, Pers. pars) or panther. Medieval heralds made no distinction in shape between a lion and a leopard, but marked the difference by drawing the leopard showing the full face (see Heraldry: § Beasts and Birds).

LEOPARDI, GIACOMO, Count (1798-1837), Italian poet, was born at Recanati in the March of Ancona, on the 29th of June 1798. All the circumstances of his parentage and education conspired to foster his precocious and sensitive genius at the expense of his physical and mental health. His family was ancient and patrician, but so deeply embarrassed as to be only rescued from ruin by the energy of his mother, who had taken the control of business matters entirely into her own hands, and whose engrossing devotion to her undertaking seems to have almost dried up the springs of maternal tenderness. Count Monaldo Leopardi, the father, a mere nullity in his own household, secluded himself in his extensive library, to which his nervous, sickly and deformed son had free access, and which absorbed him exclusively in the absence of any intelligent sympathy from his parents, any companionship except that of his brothers and sister, or any recreation in the dullest of Italian towns. The lad spent his days over grammars and dictionaries, learning Latin with little assistance, and Greek and the principal modern languages with none at all. Any ordinarily clever boy would have emerged from this discipline a mere pedant and bookworm. Leopardi came forth a Hellene, not merely a consummate Greek scholar, but penetrated with the classical conception of life, and a master of antique form and style. At sixteen he composed a Latin treatise on the Roman rhetoricians of the 2nd century, a commentary on Porphyry’s life of Plotinus and a history of astronomy; at seventeen he wrote on the popular errors of the ancients, citing more than four hundred authors. A little later he imposed upon the first scholars of Italy by two odes in the manner of Anacreon. At eighteen he produced a poem of considerable length, the Appressamento alla Morte, which, after being lost for many years, was discovered and published by Zanino Volta. It is a vision of the omnipotence of death, modelled upon Petrarch, but more truly inspired by Dante, and in its conception, machinery and general tone offering a remarkable resemblance to Shelley’s Triumph of Life (1822), of which Leopardi probably never heard. This juvenile work was succeeded (1819) by two lyrical compositions which at once placed the author upon the height which he maintained ever afterwards. The ode to Italy, and that on the monument to Dante erected at Florence, gave voice to the dismay and affliction with which Italy, aroused by the French Revolution from the torpor of the 17th and 18th centuries, contemplated her forlorn and degraded condition, her political impotence, her degeneracy in arts and arms and the frivolity or stagnation of her intellectual life. They were the outcry of a student who had found an ideal of national existence in his books, and to whose disappointment everything in his own circumstances lent additional poignancy. But there is nothing unmanly or morbid in the expression of these sentiments, and the odes are surprisingly exempt from the failings characteristic of young poets. They are remarkably chaste in diction, close and nervous in style, sparing in fancy and almost destitute of simile and metaphor, antique in spirit, yet pervaded by modern ideas, combining Landor’s dignity with a considerable infusion of the passion of Byron. These qualities continued to characterize Leopardi’s poetical writings throughout his life. A third ode, on Cardinal Mai’s discoveries of ancient MSS., lamented in the same spirit of indignant sorrow the decadence of Italian literature. The publication of these pieces widened the breach between Leopardi and his father, a well-meaning but apparently dull and apathetic man, who had lived into the 19th century without imbibing any of its spirit, and who provoked his son’s contempt by a superstition unpardonable in a scholar of real learning. Very probably from a mistaken idea of duty to his son, very probably, too, from his own entire dependence in pecuniary matters upon his wife, he for a long time obstinately refused Leopardi funds, recreation, change of scene, everything that could have contributed to combat the growing pessimism which eventually became nothing less than monomaniacal. The affection of his brothers and sister afforded him some consolation, and he found intellectual sympathy in the eminent scholar and patriot Pietro Giordani, with whom he assiduously corresponded at this period, partly on the ways and means of escaping from “this hermitage, or rather seraglio, where the delights of civil society and the advantages of solitary life are alike wanting.” This forms the keynote of numerous letters of complaint and lamentation, as touching but as effeminate in their pathos as those of the banished Ovid. It must be remembered in fairness that the weakness of Leopardi’s eyesight frequently deprived him for months together of the resource of study. At length (1822) his father allowed him to repair to Rome, where, though cheered by the encouragement of C. C. J. Bunsen and Niebuhr, he found little satisfaction in the trifling pedantry that passed for philology and archaeology, while his sceptical opinions prevented his taking orders, the indispensable condition of public employment in the Papal States. Dispirited and with exhausted means, he returned to Recanati, where he spent three miserable years, brightened only by the production of several lyrical masterpieces, which appeared in 1824. The most remarkable is perhaps the Bruto Minore, the condensation of his philosophy of despair. In 1825 he accepted an engagement to edit Cicero and Petrarch for the publisher Stella at Milan, and took up his residence at Bologna, where his life was for a time made almost cheerful by the friendship of the countess Malvezzi. In 1827 appeared the Operette Morali, consisting principally of dialogues and his imaginary biography of Filippo Ottonieri, which have given Leopardi a fame as a prose writer hardly inferior to his celebrity as a poet. Modern literature has few productions so eminently classical in form and spirit, so symmetrical in construction and faultless in style. Lucian is evidently the model; but the wit and irony which were playthings to Lucian are terribly earnest with Leopardi. Leopardi’s invention is equal to Lucian’s and his only drawback in comparison with his exemplar is that, while the latter’s campaign against pretence and imposture commands hearty sympathy, Leopardi’s philosophical creed is a repulsive hedonism in the disguise of austere stoicism. The chief interlocutors in his dialogues all profess the same unmitigated pessimism, claim emancipation from every illusion that renders life tolerable to the vulgar, and assert or imply a vast moral and intellectual superiority over unenlightened mankind. When, however, we come to inquire what renders them miserable, we find it is nothing but the privation of pleasurable sensation, fame, fortune or some other external thing which a lofty code of ethics would deny to be either indefeasibly due to man or essential to his felicity. A page of Sartor Resartus scatters Leopardi’s sophistry to the winds, and leaves nothing of his dialogues but the consummate literary skill that would render the least fragment precious. As works of art they are a possession for ever, as contributions to moral philosophy they are worthless, and apart from their literary qualities can only escape condemnation if regarded as lyrical expressions of emotion, the wail extorted from a diseased mind by a diseased body. Filippo Ottonieri is a portrait of an imaginary philosopher, imitated from the biography of a real sage in Lucian’s Demonax. Lucian has shown us the philosopher he wished to copy, Leopardi has truly depicted the philosopher he was. Nothing can be more striking or more tragical than the picture of the man superior to his fellows in every quality of head and heart, and yet condemned to sterility and impotence because he has, as he imagines, gone a step too far on the road to truth, and illusions exist for him no more. The little tract is full of remarks on life and character of surprising depth and justice, manifesting what powers of observation as well as reflection were possessed by the sickly youth who had seen so little of the world.

Want of means soon drove Leopardi back to Recanati, where, deaf, half-blind, sleepless, tortured by incessant pain, at war with himself and every one around him except his sister, he spent the two most unhappy years of his unhappy life. In May 1831 he escaped to Florence, where he formed the acquaintance of a young Swiss philologist, M. de Sinner. To him he confided his unpublished philological writings, with a view to their appearance in Germany. A selection appeared under the title Excerpta ex schedis criticis J. Leopardi (Bonn, 1834). The remaining MSS. were purchased after Sinner’s death by the Italian government, and, together with Leopardi’s correspondence with the Swiss philologist, were partially edited by Aulard. In 1831 appeared a new edition of Leopardi’s poems, comprising several new pieces of the highest merit. These are in general less austerely classical than his earlier compositions, and evince a greater tendency to description, and a keener interest in the works and ways of ordinary mankind. The Resurrection, composed on occasion of his unexpected recovery, is a model of concentrated energy of diction, and The Song of the Wandering Shepherd in Asia is one of the highest flights of modern lyric poetry. The range of the author’s ideas is still restricted, but his style and melody are unsurpassable. Shortly after the publication of these pieces (October 1831) Leopardi was driven from Florence to Rome by an unhappy attachment. His feelings are powerfully expressed in two poems, To Himself and Aspasia, which seem to breathe wounded pride at least as much as wounded love. In 1832 Leopardi returned to Florence, and there formed acquaintance with a young Neapolitan, Antonio Ranieri, himself an author of merit, and destined to enact towards him the part performed by Severn towards Keats, an enviable title to renown if Ranieri had not in his old age tarnished it by assuming the relation of Trelawny to the dead Byron. Leopardi accompanied Ranieri and his sister to Naples, and under their care enjoyed four years of comparative tranquillity. He made the acquaintance of the German poet Platen, his sole modern rival in the classical perfection of form, and composed La Ginestra, the most consummate of all his lyrical masterpieces, strongly resembling Shelley’s Mont Blanc, but more perfect in expression. He also wrote at Naples The Sequel to the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, a satire in ottava rima on the abortive Neapolitan revolution of 1820, clever and humorous, but obscure from the local character of the allusions. The more painful details of his Neapolitan residence may be found by those who care to seek for them in the deplorable publication of Ranieri’s peevish old age (Sette anni di sodalizio). The decay of Leopardi’s constitution continued; he became dropsical; and a sudden crisis of his malady, unanticipated by himself alone, put an end to his life-long sufferings on the 15th of June 1837.

The poems which constitute Leopardi’s principal title to immortality are only forty-one in number, and some of these are merely fragmentary. They may for the most part be described as odes, meditative soliloquies, or impassioned addresses, generally couched in a lyrical form, although a few are in magnificent blank verse. Some idea of the style and spirit of the former might be obtained by imagining the thoughts of the last book of Spenser’s Faerie Queene in the metre of his Epithalamium. They were first edited complete by Ranieri at Florence in 1845, forming, along with the Operette Morali, the first volume of an edition of Leopardi’s works, which does not, however, include The Sequel to the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, first printed at Paris in 1842, nor the afterwards discovered writings. Vols. ii.-iv. contain the philological essays and translations, with some letters, and vols. v. and vi. the remainder of the correspondence. Later editions are those of G. Chiarini and G. Mestica. The juvenile essays preserved in his father’s library at Recanati were edited by Cugnoni (Opere inedite) in 1879, with the consent of the family. See Cappelleti, Bibliografia Leopardiana (Parma, 1882). Leopardi’s biography is mainly in his letters (Epistolario, 1st ed., 1849, 5th ed., 1892), to which his later biographers (Brandes, Bouché-Leclercq, Rosa) have merely added criticisms, excellent in their way, more particularly Brandes’s, but generally over-rating Leopardi’s significance in the history of human thought. W. E. Gladstone’s essay (Quart. Rev., 1850), reprinted in vol. ii. of the author’s Gleanings, is too much pervaded by the theological spirit, but is in the main a pattern of generous and discriminating eulogy. There are excellent German translations of the poems by Heyse and Brandes. An English translation of the essays and dialogues by C. Edwards appeared in 1882, and most of the dialogues were translated with extraordinary felicity by James Thomson, author of The City of Dreadful Night, and originally published in the National Reformer.

(R. G.)

LEOPARDO, ALESSANDRO (d. c. 1512), Italian sculptor, was born and died at Venice. His first known work is the imposing mausoleum of the doge Andrea Vendramini, now in the church of San Giovanni e Paolo; in this he had the co-operation of Tullio Lombardo, but the finest parts are Leopardo’s. Some of the figures have been taken away, and two in the Berlin museum are considered to be certainly his work. He was exiled on a charge of fraud in 1487, and recalled in 1490 by the senate to finish Verrocchio’s colossal statue of Bartolommeo Colleoni. He worked between 1503 and 1505 on the tomb of Cardinal Zeno at St Mark’s, which was finished in 1515 by Pietro Lombardo; and in 1505 he designed and cast the bronze sockets for the three flagstaffs in the square of St Mark’s, the antique character of the decorations suggesting some Greek model. (See Venice.)

LEOPOLD (M.H. Ger. Liupolt, O.H. Ger. Liupald, from liut, Mod. Ger. Leute, “people,” and pald, “bold,” i.e. “bold for the people”), the name which has been that of several European sovereigns.

LEOPOLD I. (1640-1705), Roman emperor, the second son of the emperor Ferdinand III. and his first wife Maria Anna, daughter of Philip III. of Spain, was born on the 9th of June 1640. Intended for the Church, he received a good education, but his prospects were changed by the death of his elder brother, the German king Ferdinand IV., in July 1654, when he became his father’s heir. In 1655 he was chosen king of Hungary and in 1656 king of Bohemia, and in July 1658, more than a year after his father’s death, he was elected emperor at Frankfort, in spite of the intrigues of Cardinal Mazarin, who wished to place on the imperial throne Ferdinand, elector of Bavaria, or some other prince whose elevation would break the Habsburg succession. Mazarin, however, obtained a promise from the new emperor that he would not send assistance to Spain, then at war with France, and, by joining a confederation of German princes, called the league of the Rhine, France secured a certain influence in the internal affairs of Germany. Leopold’s long reign covers one of the most important periods of European history; for nearly the whole of its forty-seven years he was pitted against Louis XIV. of France, whose dominant personality completely overshadowed Leopold. The emperor was a man of peace and never led his troops in person; yet the greater part of his public life was spent in arranging and directing wars. The first was with Sweden, whose king Charles X. found a useful ally in the prince of Transylvania, George II. Rakocky, a rebellious vassal of the Hungarian crown. This war, a legacy of the last reign, was waged by Leopold as the ally of Poland until peace was made at Oliva in 1660. A more dangerous foe next entered the lists. The Turks interfered in the affairs of Transylvania, always an unruly district, and this interference brought on a war with the Empire, which after some desultory operations really began in 1663. By a personal appeal to the diet at Regensburg Leopold induced the princes to send assistance for the campaign; troops were also sent by France, and in August 1664 the great imperialist general, Montecucculi, gained a notable victory at St Gotthard. By the peace of Vasvar the emperor made a twenty years’ truce with the sultan, granting more generous terms than his recent victory seemed to render necessary.

After a few years of peace began the first of three wars between France and the Empire. The aggressive policy pursued by Louis XIV. towards Holland had aroused the serious attention of Europe, and steps had been taken to check it. Although the French king had sought the alliance of several German princes and encouraged the Turks in their attacks on Austria the emperor at first took no part in this movement. He was on friendly terms with Louis, to whom he was closely related and with whom he had already discussed the partition of the lands of the Spanish monarchy; moreover, in 1671 he arranged with him a treaty of neutrality. In 1672, however, he was forced to take action. He entered into an alliance for the defence of Holland and war broke out; then, after this league had collapsed owing to the defection of the elector of Brandenburg, another and more durable alliance was formed for the same purpose, including, besides the emperor, the king of Spain and several German princes, and the war was renewed. At this time, twenty-five years after the peace of Westphalia, the Empire was virtually a confederation of independent princes, and it was very difficult for its head to conduct any war with vigour and success, some of its members being in alliance with the enemy and others being only lukewarm in their support of the imperial interests. Thus this struggle, which lasted until the end of 1678, was on the whole unfavourable to Germany, and the advantages of the treaty of Nijmwegen (February 1679) were with France.

Almost immediately after the conclusion of peace Louis renewed his aggressions on the German frontier. Engaged in a serious struggle with Turkey, the emperor was again slow to move, and although he joined a league against France in 1682 he was glad to make a truce at Regensburg two years later. In 1686 the league of Augsburg was formed by the emperor and the imperial princes, to preserve the terms of the treaties of Westphalia and of Nijmwegen. The whole European position was now bound up with events in England, and the tension lasted until 1688, when William of Orange won the English crown and Louis invaded Germany. In May 1689 the grand alliance was formed, including the emperor, the kings of England, Spain and Denmark, the elector of Brandenburg and others, and a fierce struggle against France was waged throughout almost the whole of western Europe. In general the several campaigns were favourable to the allies, and in September 1697 England and Holland made peace with Louis at Ryswick. To this treaty Leopold refused to assent, as he considered that his allies had somewhat neglected his interests, but in the following month he came to terms and a number of places were transferred from France to Germany. The peace with France lasted for about four years and then Europe was involved in the War of the Spanish Succession. The king of Spain, Charles II., was a Habsburg by descent and was related by marriage to the Austrian branch, while a similar tie bound him to the royal house of France. He was feeble and childless, and attempts had been made by the European powers to arrange for a peaceable division of his extensive kingdom. Leopold refused to consent to any partition, and when in November 1700 Charles died, leaving his crown to Philip, duke of Anjou, a grandson of Louis XIV., all hopes of a peaceable settlement vanished. Under the guidance of William III. a powerful league, the grand alliance, was formed against France; of this the emperor was a prominent member, and in 1703 he transferred his claim on the Spanish monarchy to his second son, the archduke Charles. The early course of the war was not favourable to the imperialists, but the tide of defeat had been rolled back by the great victory of Blenheim before Leopold died on the 5th of May 1705.

In governing his own lands Leopold found his chief difficulties in Hungary, where unrest was caused partly by his desire to crush Protestantism. A rising was suppressed in 1671 and for some years Hungary was treated with great severity. In 1681, after another rising, some grievances were removed and a less repressive policy was adopted, but this did not deter the Hungarians from revolting again. Espousing the cause of the rebels the sultan sent an enormous army into Austria early in 1683; this advanced almost unchecked to Vienna, which was besieged from July to September, while Leopold took refuge at Passau. Realizing the gravity of the situation somewhat tardily, some of the German princes, among them the electors of Saxony and Bavaria, led their contingents to the imperial army which was commanded by the emperor’s brother-in-law, Charles, duke of Lorraine, but the most redoubtable of Leopold’s allies was the king of Poland, John Sobieski, who was already dreaded by the Turks. On the 12th of September 1683 the allied army fell upon the enemy, who was completely routed, and Vienna was saved. The imperialists, among whom Prince Eugene of Savoy was rapidly becoming prominent, followed up the victory with others, notably one near Mohacz in 1687 and another at Zenta in 1697, and in January 1699 the sultan signed the treaty of Karlowitz by which he admitted the sovereign rights of the house of Habsburg over nearly the whole of Hungary. Before the conclusion of the war, however, Leopold had taken measures to strengthen his hold upon this country. In 1687 at the diet of Pressburg the constitution was changed, the right of the Habsburgs to succeed to the throne without election was admitted and the emperor’s elder son Joseph was crowned hereditary king of Hungary.

During this reign some important changes were made in the constitution of the Empire. In 1663 the imperial diet entered upon the last stage of its existence, and became a body permanently in session at Regensburg; in 1692 the duke of Hanover was raised to the rank of an elector, becoming the ninth member of the electoral college; and in 1700 Leopold, greatly in need of help for the impending war with France, granted the title of king of Prussia to the elector of Brandenburg. The net result of these and similar changes was to weaken the authority of the emperor over the members of the Empire, and to compel him to rely more and more upon his position as ruler of the Austrian archduchies and of Hungary and Bohemia, and Leopold was the first who really appears to have realized this altered state of affairs and to have acted in accordance therewith.

The emperor was married three times. His first wife was Margaret Theresa (d. 1673), daughter of Philip IV. of Spain; his second Claudia Felicitas (d. 1676), the heiress of Tirol; and his third Eleanora, a princess of the Palatinate. By his first two wives he had no sons, but his third wife bore him two, Joseph and Charles, both of whom became emperors. He had also four daughters.

Leopold was a man of industry and education, and during his later years he showed some political ability. Extremely tenacious of his rights, and regarding himself as an absolute sovereign, he was also very intolerant and was greatly influenced by the Jesuits. In person he was short, but strong and healthy. Although he had no inclination for a military life he loved exercises in the open air, such as hunting and riding; he had also a taste for music.

Leopold’s letters to Marco d’Aviano from 1680 to 1699 were edited by O. Klopp and published at Graz in 1888. Other letters are found in the Fontes rerum Austriacarum, Bände 56 and 57 (Vienna, 1903-1904). See also F. Krones, Handbuch der Geschichte Österreichs (Berlin, 1876-1879); R. Baumstark, Kaiser Leopold I. (1873); and A. F. Pribram, Zur Wahl Leopolds I. (Vienna, 1888).

(A. W. H.*)

LEOPOLD II. (1747-1792), Roman emperor, and grand-duke of Tuscany, son of the empress Maria Theresa and her husband, Francis I., was born in Vienna on the 5th of May 1747. He was a third son, and was at first educated for the priesthood, but the theological studies to which he was forced to apply himself are believed to have influenced his mind in a way unfavourable to the Church. On the death of his elder brother Charles in 1761 it was decided that he should succeed to his father’s grand duchy of Tuscany, which was erected into a “secundogeniture” or apanage for a second son. This settlement was the condition of his marriage on the 5th of August 1764 with Maria Louisa, daughter of Charles III. of Spain, and on the death of his father Francis I. (13th August 1765) he succeeded to the grand duchy. For five years he exercised little more than nominal authority under the supervision of counsellors appointed by his mother. In 1770 he made a journey to Vienna to secure the removal of this vexatious guardianship, and returned to Florence with a free hand. During the twenty years which elapsed between his return to Florence and the death of his eldest brother Joseph II. in 1790 he was employed in reforming the administration of his small state. The reformation was carried out by the removal of the ruinous restrictions on industry and personal freedom imposed by his predecessors of the house of Medici, and left untouched during his father’s life; by the introduction of a rational system of taxation; and by the execution of profitable public works, such as the drainage of the Val di Chiana. As he had no army to maintain, and as he suppressed the small naval force kept up by the Medici, the whole of his revenue was left free for the improvement of his state. Leopold was never popular with his Italian subjects. His disposition was cold and retiring. His habits were simple to the verge of sordidness, though he could display splendour on occasion, and he could not help offending those of his subjects who had profited by the abuses of the Medicean régime. But his steady, consistent and intelligent administration, which advanced step by step, making the second only when the first had been justified by results, brought the grand duchy to a high level of material prosperity. His ecclesiastical policy, which disturbed the deeply rooted convictions of his people, and brought him into collision with the pope, was not successful. He was unable to secularize the property of the religious houses, or to put the clergy entirely under the control of the lay power.

During the last few years of his rule in Tuscany Leopold had begun to be frightened by the increasing disorders in the German and Hungarian dominions of his family, which were the direct result of his brother’s headlong methods. He and Joseph II. were tenderly attached to one another, and met frequently both before and after the death of their mother, while the portrait by Pompeo Baltoni in which they appear together shows that they bore a strong personal resemblance to one another. But it may be said of Leopold, as of Fontenelle, that his heart was made of brains. He knew that he must succeed his childless eldest brother in Austria, and he was unwilling to inherit his unpopularity. When, therefore, in 1789 Joseph, who knew himself to be dying, asked him to come to Vienna, and become co-regent, Leopold coldly evaded the request. He was still in Florence when Joseph II. died at Vienna on the 20th of February 1790, and he did not leave his Italian capital till the 3rd of March. Leopold, during his government in Tuscany, had shown a speculative tendency to grant his subjects a constitution. When he succeeded to the Austrian lands he began by making large concessions to the interests offended by his brother’s innovations. He recognized the Estates of his different dominions as “the pillars of the monarchy,” pacified the Hungarians and divided the Belgian insurgents by concessions. When these failed to restore order, he marched troops into the country, and re-established at the same time his own authority, and the historic franchises of the Flemings. Yet he did not surrender any part that could be retained of what Maria Theresa and Joseph had done to strengthen the hands of the state. He continued, for instance, to insist that no papal bull could be published in his dominions without his consent (placetum regium).

If Leopold’s reign as emperor, and king of Hungary and Bohemia, had been prolonged during years of peace, it is probable that he would have repeated his successes as a reforming ruler in Tuscany on a far larger scale. But he lived for barely two years, and during that period he was hard pressed by peril from west and east alike. The growing revolutionary disorders in France endangered the life of his sister Marie Antoinette, the queen of Louis XVI., and also threatened his own dominions with the spread of a subversive agitation. His sister sent him passionate appeals for help, and he was pestered by the royalist emigrants, who were intriguing both to bring about an armed intervention in France, and against Louis XVI. From the east he was threatened by the aggressive ambition of Catherine II. of Russia, and by the unscrupulous policy of Prussia. Catherine would have been delighted to see Austria and Prussia embark on a crusade in the cause of kings against the Revolution. While they were busy beyond the Rhine, she would have annexed what remained of Poland, and would have made conquests in Turkey. Leopold II. had no difficulty in seeing through the rather transparent cunning of the Russian empress, and he refused to be misled. To his sister he gave good advice and promises of help if she and her husband could escape from Paris. The emigrants who followed him pertinaciously were refused audience, or when they forced themselves on him were peremptorily denied all help. Leopold was too purely a politician not to be secretly pleased at the destruction of the power of France and of her influence in Europe by her internal disorders. Within six weeks of his accession he displayed his contempt for her weakness by practically tearing up the treaty of alliance made by Maria Theresa in 1756 and opening negotiations with England to impose a check on Russia and Prussia. He was able to put pressure on England by threatening to cede his part of the Low Countries to France, and then, when secure of English support, he was in a position to baffle the intrigues of Prussia. A personal appeal to Frederick William II. led to a conference between them at Reichenbach in July 1790, and to an arrangement which was in fact a defeat for Prussia. Leopold’s coronation as king of Hungary on the 15th of November 1790, was preceded by a settlement with the diet in which he recognized the dominant position of the Magyars. He had already made an eight months’ truce with the Turks in September, which prepared the way for the termination of the war begun by Joseph II., the peace of Sistova being signed in August 1791. The pacification of his eastern dominions left Leopold free to re-establish order in Belgium and to confirm friendly relations with England and Holland.

During 1791 the emperor continued to be increasingly preoccupied with the affairs of France. In January he had to dismiss the count of Artois, afterwards Charles X., king of France, in a very peremptory way. His good sense was revolted by the folly of the French emigrants, and he did his utmost to avoid being entangled in the affairs of that country. The insults inflicted on Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette, however, at the time of their attempted flight to Varennes in June, stirred his indignation, and he made a general appeal to the sovereigns of Europe to take common measures in view of events which “immediately compromised the honour of all sovereigns, and the security of all governments.” Yet he was most directly interested in the conference at Sistova, which in June led to a final peace with Turkey. On the 25th of August he met the king of Prussia at Pillnitz, near Dresden, and they drew up a declaration of their readiness to intervene in France if and when their assistance was called for by the other powers. The declaration was a mere formality, for, as Leopold knew, neither Russia nor England was prepared to act, and he endeavoured to guard against the use which he foresaw the emigrants would endeavour to make of it. In face of the agitation caused by the Pillnitz declaration in France, the intrigues of the emigrants, and the attacks made by the French revolutionists on the rights of the German princes in Alsace, Leopold continued to hope that intervention might not be required. When Louis XVI. swore to observe the constitution of September 1791, the emperor professed to think that a settlement had been reached in France. The attacks on the rights of the German princes on the left bank of the Rhine, and the increasing violence of the parties in Paris which were agitating to bring about war, soon showed, however, that this hope was vain. Leopold met the threatening language of the revolutionists with dignity and temper. His sudden death on the 1st of March 1792 was an irreparable loss to Austria.

Leopold had sixteen children, the eldest of his eight sons being his successor, the emperor Francis II. Some of his other sons were prominent personages in their day. Among them were: Ferdinand III., grand duke of Tuscany; the archduke Charles, a celebrated soldier; the archduke John, also a soldier; the archduke Joseph, palatine of Hungary; and the archduke Rainer, viceroy of Lombardy-Venetia.

Several volumes containing the emperor’s correspondence have been published. Among these are: Joseph II. und Leopold von Toskana. Ihr Briefwechsel 1781-1790 (Vienna, 1872), and Marie Antoinette, Joseph II. und Leopold II. Ihr Briefwechsel (Vienna, 1866), both edited by A. Ritter von Arneth; Joseph II., Leopold II. und Kaunitz. Ihr Briefwechsel (Vienna, 1873); and Leopold II., Franz II. und Catharina. Ihre Correspondenz nebst einer Einleitung: Zur Geschichte der Politik Leopolds II. (Leipzig, 1874), both edited by A. Beer; and Leopold II. und Marie Christine. Ihrand Briefwechsel 1781-1792, edited by A. Wolf (Vienna, 1867). See also H. von Sybel, Über die Regierung Kaiser Leopolds II. (Munich, 1860); A. Schultze, Kaiser Leopold II. und die französische Revolution (Leipzig, 1899); and A. Wolf and H. von Zwiedeneck-Südenhorst, Österreich unter Maria Theresa, Joseph II. und Leopold II. (Berlin, 1882-1884).

LEOPOLD I. (1790-1865), king of the Belgians, fourth son of Francis, duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and uncle of Queen Victoria of England, was born at Coburg on the 18th of December 1790. At the age of eighteen he entered the military service of Russia, and accompanied the emperor Alexander to Erfurt as a member of his staff. He was required by Napoleon to quit the Russian army, and spent some years in travelling. In 1813 he accepted from the emperor Alexander the post of a cavalry general in the army of invasion, and he took part in the whole of the campaign of that and the following year, distinguishing himself in the battles of Leipzig, Lützen and Bautzen. He entered Paris with the allied sovereigns, and accompanied them to England. He married in May 1816 Charlotte, only child of George, prince regent, afterwards George IV., heiress-presumptive to the British throne, and was created duke of Kendal in the British peerage and given an annuity of £50,000. The death of the princess in the following year was a heavy blow to his hopes, but he continued to reside in England. In 1830 he declined the offer of the crown of Greece, owing to the refusal of the powers to grant conditions which he considered essential to the welfare of the new kingdom, but was in the following year elected king of the Belgians (4th June 1831). After some hesitation he accepted the crown, having previously ascertained that he would have the support of the great powers on entering upon his difficult task, and on the 12th of July he made his entry into Brussels and took the oath to observe the constitution. During the first eight years of his reign he was confronted with the resolute hostility of King William I. of Holland, and it was not until 1839 that the differences between the two states, which until 1830 had formed the kingdom of the Netherlands, were finally settled at the conference of London by the treaty of the 24 Articles (see Belgium). From this date until his death, King Leopold spent all his energies in the wise administration of the affairs of the newly formed kingdom, which may be said to owe in a large measure its first consolidation and constant prosperity to the care and skill of his discreet and fatherly government. In 1848 the throne of Belgium stood unshaken amidst the revolutions which marked that year in almost every European country. On the 8th of August 1832 Leopold married, as his second wife, Louise of Orleans, daughter of Louis Philippe, king of the French. Queen Louise endeared herself to the Belgian people, and her death in 1850 was felt as a national loss. This union produced two sons and one daughter—(1) Leopold, afterwards king of the Belgians; (2) Philip, count of Flanders; (3) Marie Charlotte, who married Maximilian of Austria, the unfortunate emperor of Mexico. Leopold I. died at Laeken on the 10th of December 1865. He was a most cultured man and a great reader, and did his utmost during his reign to encourage art, science and education. His judgment was universally respected by contemporary sovereigns and statesmen, and he was frequently spoken of as “the Nestor of Europe” (see also Victoria, Queen).

See Th. Juste, Léopold Ier, roi des Belges d’après des doc. inéd. 1793-1865 (2 vols., Brussels, 1868), and Les Fondateurs de la monarchie Belge (22 vols., Brussels, 1878-1880); J. J. Thonissen, La Belgique sous le règne de Léopold Ier (Louvain, 1862).

LEOPOLD II. [Leopold Louis Philippe Marie Victor] (1835-1909), king of the Belgians, son of the preceding, was born at Brussels on the 9th of April 1835. In 1846 he was created duke of Brabant and appointed a sub-lieutenant in the army, in which he served until his accession, by which time he had reached the rank of lieutenant-general. On attaining his majority he was made a member of the senate, in whose proceedings he took a lively interest, especially in matters concerning the development of Belgium and its trade. On the 22nd of August 1853 Leopold married Marie Henriette (1836-1902), daughter of the archduke Joseph of Austria, palatine of Hungary, by his wife Marie Dorothea, duchess of Württemberg. This princess, who was a great-granddaughter of the empress Maria Theresa, and a great-niece of Marie Antoinette, endeared herself to the people by her elevated character and indefatigable benevolence, while her beauty gained for her the sobriquet of “The Rose of Brabant”; she was also an accomplished artist and musician, and a fine horsewoman. Between the years 1854 and 1865 Leopold travelled much abroad, visiting India and China as well as Egypt and the countries on the Mediterranean coast of Africa. On the 10th of December 1865 he succeeded his father. On the 28th of January 1869 he lost his only son, Leopold (b. 1859), duke of Hainaut. The king’s brother Philip, count of Flanders (1837-1905), then became heir to the throne; and on his death his son Albert (b. 1875) became heir-presumptive. During the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) the king of the Belgians preserved neutrality in a period of unusual difficulty and danger. But the most notable event in Leopold’s career was the foundation of the Congo Free State (q.v.). While still duke of Brabant he had been the first to call the attention of the Belgians to the need of enlarging their horizon beyond sea, and after his accession to the throne he gave the first impulse towards the development of this idea by founding in 1876 the Association Internationale Africaine. He enlisted the services of H. M. Stanley, who visited Brussels in 1878 after exploring the Congo river, and returned in 1879 to the Congo as agent of the Comité d’Études du Haut Congo, soon afterwards reorganized as the “International Association of the Congo.” This association was, in 1884-1885, recognized by the powers as a sovereign state under the name of the État Indépendant du Congo. Leopold’s exploitation of this vast territory, which he administered autocratically, and in which he associated himself personally with various financial schemes, was understood to bring him an enormous fortune; it was the subject of acutely hostile criticism, to a large extent substantiated by the report of a commission of inquiry instituted by the king himself in 1904, and followed in 1908 by the annexation of the state to Belgium (see Congo Free State: History). In 1880 Leopold sought an interview with General C. G. Gordon and obtained his promise, subject to the approval of the British government, to enter the Belgian service on the Congo. Three years later Leopold claimed fulfilment of the promise, and Gordon was about to proceed to the Congo when the British government required his services for the Sudan. On the 15th of November 1902 King Leopold’s life was attempted in Brussels by an Italian anarchist named Rubino. Queen Marie Henriette died at Spa on the 19th of September of the same year. Besides the son already mentioned she had borne to Leopold three daughters—Louise Marie Amélie (b. 1858), who in 1875 married Philip of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and was divorced in 1906; Stéphanie (b. 1864), who married Rudolph, crown prince of Austria, in 1881, and after his death in 1889 married, against her father’s wishes, Elemer, Count Lonyay, in 1900; and Clémentine (b. 1872). At the time of the queen’s death an unseemly incident was occasioned by Leopold’s refusal to see his daughter Stéphanie, who in consequence was not present at her mother’s funeral. The disagreeable impression on the public mind thus created was deepened by an unfortunate litigation, lasting for two years (1904-1906), over the deceased queen’s will, in which the creditors of the princess Louise, together with princess Stéphanie (Countess Lonyay), claimed that under the Belgian law the queen’s estate was entitled to half of her husband’s property. This claim was disallowed by the Belgian courts. The king died at Laeken, near Brussels, on the 17th of December 1909. On the 23rd of that month his nephew took the oath to observe the constitution, assuming the title of Albert I. King Leopold was personally a man of considerable attainments and much strength of character, but he was a notoriously dissolute monarch, who even to the last offended decent opinion by his indulgences at Paris and on the Riviera. The wealth he amassed from the Congo he spent, no doubt, royally not only in this way but also on public improvements in Belgium; but he had a hard heart towards the natives of his distant possession.

LEOPOLD II. (1797-1870), of Habsburg-Lorraine, grand-duke of Tuscany, was born on the 3rd of October 1797, the son of the grand-duke Ferdinand III., whom he succeeded in 1824. During the first twenty years of his reign he devoted himself to the internal development of the state. His was the mildest and least reactionary of all the Italian despotisms of the day, and although always subject to Austrian influence he refused to adopt the Austrian methods of government, allowed a fair measure of liberty to the press, and permitted many political exiles from other states to dwell in Tuscany undisturbed. But when in the early ’forties a feeling of unrest spread throughout Italy, even in Tuscany demands for a constitution and other political reforms were advanced; in 1845-1846 riots broke out in various parts of the country, and Leopold granted a number of administrative reforms. But Austrian influence prevented him from going further, even had he wished to do so. The election of Pope Pius IX. gave fresh impulse to the Liberal movement, and on the 4th of September 1847 Leopold instituted the National Guard—a first step towards the constitution; shortly after the marchese Cosimo Ridolfi was appointed prime minister. The granting of the Neapolitan and Piedmontese constitutions was followed (17th February 1848) by that of Tuscany, drawn up by Gino Capponi. The revolution in Milan and Vienna aroused a fever of patriotic enthusiasm in Tuscany, where war against Austria was demanded; Leopold, giving way to popular pressure, sent a force of regulars and volunteers to co-operate with Piedmont in the Lombard campaign. His speech on their departure was uncompromisingly Italian and Liberal. “Soldiers,” he said, “the holy cause of Italian freedom is being decided to-day on the fields of Lombardy. Already the citizens of Milan have purchased their liberty with their blood and with a heroism of which history offers few examples.... Honour to the arms of Italy! Long live Italian independence!” The Tuscan contingent fought bravely, if unsuccessfully, at Curtatone and Montanara. On the 26th of June the first Tuscan parliament assembled, but the disturbances consequent on the failure of the campaign in Lombardy led to the resignation of the Ridolfi ministry, which was succeeded by that of Gino Capponi. The riots continued, especially at Leghorn, which was a prey to actual civil war, and the democratic party of which F. D. Guerrazzi and G. Montanelli were leading lights became every day more influential. Capponi resigned, and Leopold reluctantly agreed to a Montanelli-Guerrazzi ministry, which in its turn had to fight against the extreme republican party. New elections in the autumn of 1848 returned a constitutional majority, but it ended by voting in favour of a constituent assembly. There was talk of instituting a central Italian kingdom with Leopold as king, to form part of a larger Italian federation, but in the meanwhile the grand-duke, alarmed at the revolutionary and republican agitations in Tuscany and encouraged by the success of the Austrian arms, was, according to Montanelli, negotiating with Field-Marshal Radetzky and with Pius IX., who had now abandoned his Liberal tendencies, and fled to Gaeta. Leopold had left Florence for Siena, and eventually for Porto S. Stefano, leaving a letter to Guerrazzi in which, on account of a protest from the pope, he declared that he could not agree to the proposed constituent assembly. The utmost confusion prevailed in Florence and other parts of Tuscany. On the 9th of February 1849 the republic was proclaimed, largely as a result of Mazzini’s exhortations, and on the 18th Leopold sailed for Gaeta. A third parliament was elected and Guerrazzi appointed dictator. But there was great discontent, and the defeat of Charles Albert at Novara caused consternation among the Liberals. The majority, while fearing an Austrian invasion, desired the return of the grand-duke who had never been unpopular, and in April 1849 the municipal council usurped the powers of the assembly and invited him to return, “to save us by means of the restoration of the constitutional monarchy surrounded by popular institutions, from the shame and ruin of a foreign invasion.” Leopold accepted, although he said nothing about the foreign invasion, and on the 1st of May sent Count Luigi Serristori to Tuscany with full powers. But at the same time the Austrians occupied Lucca and Leghorn, and although Leopold simulated surprise at their action it has since been proved, as the Austrian general d’Aspre declared at the time, that Austrian intervention was due to the request of the grand-duke. On the 24th of May the latter appointed G. Baldasseroni prime minister, on the 25th the Austrians entered Florence and on the 28th of July Leopold himself returned. In April 1850 he concluded a treaty with Austria sanctioning the continuation for an indefinite period of the Austrian occupation with 10,000 men; in September he dismissed parliament, and the following year established a concordat with the Church of a very clerical character. He feebly asked Austria if he might maintain the constitution, and the Austrian premier, Prince Schwarzenberg, advised him to consult the pope, the king of Naples and the dukes of Parma and Modena. On their advice he formally revoked the constitution (1852). Political trials were held, Guerrazzi and many others being condemned to long terms of imprisonment, and although in 1855 the Austrian troops left Tuscany, Leopold’s popularity was gone. A part of the Liberals, however, still believed in the possibility of a constitutional grand-duke who could be induced for a second time to join Piedmont in a war against Austria, whereas the popular party headed by F. Bartolommei and G. Dolfi realized that only by the expulsion of Leopold could the national aspirations be realized. When in 1859 France and Piedmont made war on Austria, Leopold’s government failed to prevent numbers of young Tuscan volunteers from joining the Franco-Piedmontese forces. Finally an agreement was arrived at between the aristocratic constitutionalists and the popular party, as a result of which the grand-duke’s participation in the war was formally demanded. Leopold at first gave way, and entrusted Don Neri Corsini with the formation of a ministry. The popular demands presented by Corsini were for the abdication of Leopold in favour of his son, an alliance with Piedmont and the reorganization of Tuscany in accordance with the eventual and definite reorganization of Italy. Leopold hesitated and finally rejected the proposals as derogatory to his dignity. On the 27th of April there was great excitement in Florence, Italian colours appeared everywhere, but order was maintained, and the grand-duke and his family departed for Bologna undisturbed. Thus the revolution was accomplished without a drop of blood being shed, and after a period of provisional government Tuscany was incorporated in the kingdom of Italy. On the 21st of July Leopold abdicated in favour of his son Ferdinand IV., who never reigned, but issued a protest from Dresden (26th March 1860). He spent his last years in Austria, and died in Rome on the 29th of January 1870.

Leopold of Tuscany was a well-meaning, not unkindly man, and fonder of his subjects than were the other Italian despots, but he was weak, and too closely bound by family ties and Habsburg traditions ever to become a real Liberal. Had he not joined the conclave of autocrats at Gaeta, and, above all, had he not summoned Austrian assistance while denying that he had done so, in 1849, he might yet have preserved his throne, and even changed the whole course of Italian history. At the same time his rule, if not harsh, was enervating and demoralizing.

See G. Baldasseroni, Leopoldo II. (Florence, 1871), useful but reactionary in tendency, the author having been Leopold’s minister, G. Montanelli, Memorie sull’ Italia (Turin, 1853); F. D. Guerrazzi, Memorie (Leghorn, 1848); Zobi, Storia civile della Toscana, vols. iv.-v. (Florence, 1850-1852); A. von Reumont, Geschichte Toscanas (2 vols., Gotha, 1876-1877); M. Bartolommei-Gioli, Il Rivolgimento Toscano e L’azione popolare (Florence, 1905); C. Tivaroni, L’ Italia durante il dominio Austriaco, vol. i. (Turin, 1892), and L’ Italia degli Italiani, vol. i. (Turin, 1895). See also Ricasoli; Bartolommei; Capponi, Gino; &c.

(L. V.*)

LEOPOLD II., a lake of Central Africa in the basin of the Kasai affluent of the Congo, cut by 2° S. and 18° 10′ E. It has a length N. to S. of about 75 m., is 30 m. across at its northern end, tapering towards its southern end. Numerous bays and gulfs render its outline highly irregular. Its shores are flat and marshy, the lake being (in all probability) simply the lowest part of a vast lake which existed here before the Kasai system breached the barrier—at Kwa mouth—separating it from the Congo. The lake is fed by the Lokoro (about 300 m. long) and smaller streams from the east. Its northern and western affluents are comparatively unimportant. It discharges its waters (at its southern end) into the Mfini, which is in reality the lower course of the Lukenye. The lake is gradually diminishing in area; in the rainy season it overflows its banks. The surrounding country is very flat and densely wooded.

See Kasai; and articles and maps in Le Mouvement géog., specially vol. xiv., No. 29 (1897) and vol. xxiv., No. 38 (1907).

LEOTYCHIDES, Spartan king, of the Eurypontid family, was descended from Theopompus through his younger son Anaxandridas (Herod. viii. 131), and in 491 B.C. succeeded Demaratus (q.v.), whose title to the throne he had with Cleomenes’ aid successfully challenged. He took part in Cleomenes’ second expedition to Aegina, on which ten hostages were seized and handed over to the Athenians for safe custody: for this he narrowly escaped being surrendered to the Aeginetans after Cleomenes’ death. In the spring of 479 we find him in command of the Greek fleet of 110 ships, first at Aegina and afterwards at Delos. In August he attacked the Persian position at Mycale on the coast of Asia Minor opposite Samos, inflicted a crushing defeat on the land-army, and annihilated the fleet which was drawn up on the shore. Soon afterwards he sailed home with the Peloponnesians, leaving the Athenians to prosecute the siege of Sestos. In 476 he led an army to Thessaly to punish the Aleuadae of Larisa for the aid they had rendered to the Persians and to strengthen Spartan influence in northern Greece. After a series of successful engagements he accepted a bribe from the enemy to withdraw. For this he was brought to trial at Sparta, and to save his life fled to the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea. Sentence of exile was passed, his house was razed and his grandson Archidamus II. ascended the throne (Herod. vi. 65-87, ix. 90-114; Thucydides i. 89; Pausanias iii. 4. 3. 7. 9-10; Plutarch, De malignitate Herodoti, 21, p. 859 D; Diodorus xi. 34-37).

According to Diodorus (xi. 48) Leotychides reigned twenty-two, his successor Archidamus forty-two years. The total duration of the two reigns, sixty-four years, we know to be correct, for Leotychides came to the throne in 491 and Archidamus (q.v.) died in 427. On this basis, then, Leotychides’s exile would fall in 469 and the Thessalian expedition in that or the preceding year (so E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, iii. § 287). But Diodorus is not consistent with himself; he attributes (xi. 48) Leotychides’s death to the year 476-475 and he records (xii. 35) Archidamus’s death in 434-433, though he introduces him in the following years at the head of the Peloponnesian army (xii. 42, 47, 52). Further, he says expressly that Leotychides ἐτελεύτησεν ἄρξας ἔτη εἴκοσι καὶ δύο, i.e. he lived twenty-two years after his accession. The twenty-two years, then, may include the time which elapsed between his exile and his death. In that case Leotychides died in 469, and 476-475 may be the year in which his reign, though not his life, ended. This date seems, from what we know of the political situation in general, to be more probable than the later one for the Thessalian campaign.

G. Busolt, Griech. Geschichte, iii. 83, note; J. B. Bury, History of Greece, p. 326; G. Grote, History of Greece, new edition 1888, iv. 349, note; also abridged edition 1907, p. 273, note 3. Beloch’s view (Griech. Geschichte, i. 455, note 2) that the expedition took place in 476, the trial and flight in 469, is not generally accepted.

(M. N. T.)

LEOVIGILD, or Löwenheld (d. 586), king of the Visigoths, became king in 568 after the short period of anarchy which followed the death of King Athanagild, whose widow, Goisvintha, he married. At first he ruled that part of the Visigothic kingdom which lay to the south of the Pyrenees, his brother Liuva or Leova governing the small part to the north of these mountains; but in 572 Liuva died and Leovigild became sole king. At this time the Visigoths who settled in Spain early in the 5th century were menaced by two powerful enemies, the Suevi who had a small kingdom in the north-west of the peninsula, and the Byzantines who had answered Athanagild’s appeal for help by taking possession of a stretch of country in the south-east. Their kingdom, too, was divided and weakened by the fierce hostility between the orthodox Christians and those who professed Arianism. Internal and external dangers alike, however, failed to daunt Leovigild, who may fairly be called the restorer of the Visigothic kingdom. He turned first against the Byzantines, who were defeated several times; he took Cordova and chastised the Suevi; and then by stern measures he destroyed the power of those unruly and rebellious chieftains who had reduced former kings to the position of ciphers. The chronicler tells how, having given peace to his people, he, first of the Visigothic sovereigns, assumed the attire of a king and made Toledo his capital. He strengthened the position of his family and provided for the security of his kingdom by associating his two sons, Recared and Hermenegild, with himself in the kingly office and placing parts of the land under their rule. Leovigild himself was an Arian, being the last of the Visigothic kings to hold that creed; but he was not a bitter foe of the orthodox Christians, although he was obliged to punish them when they conspired against him with his external enemies. His son Hermenegild, however, was converted to the orthodox faith through the influence of his Frankish wife, Ingundis, daughter of King Sigebert I., and of Leander, metropolitan of Seville. Allying himself with the Byzantines and other enemies of the Visigoths, and supported by most of the orthodox Christians he headed a formidable insurrection. The struggle was fierce; but at length, employing persuasion as well as force, the old king triumphed. Hermenegild was captured; he refused to give up his faith and in March or April 585 he was executed. He was canonized at the request of Philip II., king of Spain, by Pope Sixtus V. About this time Leovigild put an end to the kingdom of the Suevi. During his last years he was engaged in a war with the Franks. He died at Toledo on the 21st of April 586 and was succeeded by his son Recared.

LEPANTO, BATTLE OF, fought on the 7th of October 1571. The conquest of Cyprus by the Turks, and their aggressions on the Christian powers, frightened the states of the Mediterranean into forming a holy league for their common defence. The main promoter of the league was Pope Pius V., but the bulk of the forces was supplied by the republic of Venice and Philip II. of Spain, who was peculiarly interested in checking the Turks both because of the Moorish element in the population of Spain, and because he was also sovereign of Naples and Sicily. In compliment to King Philip, the general command of the league’s fleet was given to his natural brother, Don John of Austria. It included, however, only twenty-four Spanish ships. The great majority of the two hundred galleys and eight galeasses, of which the fleet was composed, came from Venice, under the command of the proveditore Barbarigo; from Genoa, which was in close alliance with Spain, under Gianandrea Doria; and from the Pope whose squadron was commanded by Marc Antonio Colonna. The Sicilian and Neapolitan contingents were commanded by the marquess of Santa Cruz, and Cardona, Spanish officers. Eight thousand Spanish soldiers were embarked. The allied fleet was collected slowly at Messina, from whence it advanced by the passage between Ithaca and Cephalonia to Cape Marathia near Dragonera. The Turkish fleet which had come up from Cyprus and Crete anchored in the Gulf of Patras. It consisted in all of 273 galleys which were of lighter build than the Christians’, and less well supplied with cannon or small arms. The Turks still relied mainly on the bow and arrow. Ali, the capitan pasha, was commander-in-chief, and he had with him Chulouk Bey of Alexandria, commonly called Scirocco, and Uluch Ali, dey of Algiers. On the 7th of October the Christian fleet advanced to the neighbourhood of Cape Scropha. It was formed in the traditional order of the galleys—a long line abreast, subdivided into the centre or “battle” commanded by Don John in person, the left wing under the proveditore Barbarigo, and the right under Gianandrea Doria. But a reserve squadron was placed behind the centre under the marquess of Santa Cruz, and the eight lumbering galeasses were stationed at intervals in front of the line to break the formation of the Turks. The capitan pasha left his anchorage in the Gulf of Patras with his fleet in a single line, without reserve or advance-guard. He was himself in the centre, with Scirocco on his right and Uluch Ali on his left. The two fleets met south of Cape Scropha, both drawn up from north to south, the land being close to the left flank of the Christians, and the right of the Turks. To the left of the Turks and the right of the Christians, there was open sea. Ali Pasha’s greater numbers enabled him to outflank his enemy. The Turks charged through the intervals between the galeasses, which proved to be of no value. On their right Scirocco outflanked the Venetians of Barbarigo, but the better build of the galleys of Saint Mark and the admirable discipline of their crews gave them the victory. The Turks were almost all sunk or driven on shore. Scirocco and Barbarigo both lost their lives. On the centre Don John and the capitan pasha met prow to prow—the Christians reserving the fire of their bow guns (called di cursia) till the moment of impact, and then boarding. Ali Pasha was slain and his galley taken. Everywhere on the centre the Christians gained the upper hand, but their victory was almost turned into a defeat by the mistaken manœuvres of Doria. In fear lest he should be outflanked by Uluch Ali, he stood out to sea, leaving a gap between himself and the centre. The dey of Algiers, who saw the opening, reversed the order of his squadron, and fell on the right of the centre. The galleys of the Order of Malta, which were stationed at this point, suffered severely, and their flagship was taken with great slaughter. A disaster was averted by the marquess of Santa Cruz, who brought up the reserve. Uluch Ali then retreated with sail and oar, bringing most of his division off in good order.

The loss of life in the battle was enormous, being put at 20,000 for the Turks and 8000 for the Christians. The battle of Lepanto was of immense political importance. It gave the naval power of the Turks a blow from which it never recovered, and put a stop to their aggression in the Eastern Mediterranean. Historically the battle is interesting because it was the last example of an encounter on a great scale between fleets of galleys and also because it was the last crusade. The Christian powers of the Mediterranean did really combine to avert the ruin of Christendom. Hardly a noble house of Spain or Italy was not represented in the fleet, and the princes headed the boarders. Volunteers came from all parts of Europe, and it is said that among them was Sir Richard Grenville, afterwards famous for his fight in the “Revenge” off Flores in the Azores. Cervantes was undoubtedly present, and had his left hand shattered by a Turkish bullet.

For full accounts of the battle, with copious references to authorities and to ancient controversies, mostly arising out of the conduct of Doria, see Sir W. Stirling Maxwell, Don John of Austria (1883); and Jurien de la Gravière, La Guerre de Chypre et la bataille de Lepanto (1888).

(D. H.)

For Lepanto see Naupactus.

LE PAUTRE, JEAN (1618-1682), French designer and engraver. He was apprenticed to a carpenter and builder and in addition to learning mechanical and constructive work developed considerable facility with the pencil. His designs, which were innumerable in quantity and exuberant in fancy, consisted mainly of ceilings, friezes, chimney-pieces, doorways and mural decorations; he also devised fire-dogs, sideboards, cabinets, console tables, mirrors and other pieces of furniture; he was long employed at the Gobelins. His work is often excessively flamboyant and over-elaborate; he revelled in amorini and swags, arabesques and cartouches. His chimney-pieces, however, were frequently simple and elegant. His engraved plates, almost entirely original, are something like 1500 in number and include a portrait of himself. He became a member of the academy of Paris in 1677.

LEPCHA, the name of the aboriginal inhabitants of Sikkim (q.v.). A peace-loving people, the Lepchas have been repeatedly conquered by surrounding hill-tribes, and their ancient patriarchal customs are dying out. The total number of speakers of Lepcha, or Rong, in all India in 1901, was only 19,291. Their rich and beautiful language has been preserved from extinction by the efforts of General Mainwaring and others; but their literature was almost entirely destroyed by the Tibetans, and their traditions are being rapidly forgotten. Once free and independent, they are now the poorest people in Sikkim, and it is from them that the coolie class is drawn. They are above all things woodmen, knowing the ways of beasts and birds, and possessing an extensive zoological and botanical nomenclature of their own.

See Florence Donaldson, Lepcha Land (1900).

LE PELETIER (or Lepelletier), DE SAINT-FARGEAU, LOUIS MICHEL (1760-1793), French politician, was born on the 29th of May 1760 at Paris. He belonged to a well-known family, his great-grandfather, Michel Robert Le Peletier des Forts, count of Saint-Fargeau, having been controller-general of finance. He inherited a great fortune, and soon became president of the parlement of Paris and in 1789 he was a deputy of the noblesse to the States-General. At this time he shared the conservative views of the majority of his class; but by slow degrees his ideas changed and became very advanced. On the 13th of July 1789 he demanded the recall of Necker, whose dismissal by the king had aroused great excitement in Paris; and in the Constituent Assembly he had moved the abolition of the penalty of death, of the galleys and of branding, and the substitution of beheading for hanging. This attitude won him great popularity, and on the 21st of June 1790 he was made president of the Constituent Assembly. During the existence of the Legislative Assembly, he was president of the general council for the department of the Yonne, and was afterwards elected by this department as a deputy to the Convention. Here he was in favour of the trial of Louis XVI. by the assembly and voted for the death of the king. This vote, together with his ideas in general, won him the hatred of the royalists, and on the 20th of January 1793, the eve of the execution of the king, he was assassinated in the Palais Royal at Paris by a member of the king’s body-guard. The Convention honoured Le Peletier by a magnificent funeral, and the painter J. L. David represented his death in a famous picture, which was later destroyed by his daughter. Towards the end of his life, Le Peletier had interested himself in the question of public education; he left fragments of a plan, the ideas contained in which were borrowed in later schemes. His assassin fled to Normandy, where, on the point of being discovered, he blew out his brains. Le Peletier had a brother, Félix (1769-1837), well known for his advanced ideas. His daughter, Suzanne Louise, was “adopted” by the French nation.

See Œuvres de M. le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau (Brussels, 1826) with a life by his brother Félix; E. Le Blant, “Le Peletier de St-Fargeau, et son meurtrier,” in the Correspondant review (1874); F. Clerembray, Épisodes de la Révolution (Rouen, 1891); Brette, “La Réforme de la législation universelle, et le plan de Lepelletier Saint-Fargeau,” in La Révolution française, xlii. (1902); and M. Tourneux, Bibliog. de l’hist. de Paris ... (vol. i., 1890, Nos. 3896-3910, and vol. iv., 1906, s.v. Lepeletier).

LEPIDOLITE, or Lithia-Mica, a mineral of the mica group (see Mica). It is a basic aluminium, potassium and lithium fluo-silicate, with the approximate formula KLi [Al(OH, F)2] Al(SiO3)3. Lithia and fluorine are each present to the extent of about 5%; rubidium and caesium are sometimes present in small amounts. Distinctly developed monoclinic crystals or cleavage sheets of large size are of rare occurrence, the mineral being usually found as scaly aggregates, and on this account was named lepidolite (from Gr. λεπίς, scale) by M. H. Klaproth in 1792. It is usually of a lilac or peach-blossom colour, but is sometimes greyish-white, and has a pearly lustre on the cleavage surfaces. The hardness is 2½-4 and the sp. gr. 2.8-2.9, the optic axial angle measures 50°-70°. It is found in pegmatite-veins, often in association with pink tourmaline (rubellite) and sometimes intergrown in parallel position with muscovite. Scaly masses of considerable extent are found at Rozena near Bystrzitz in Moravia and at Pala in San Diego county, California. The material from Rozena has been known since 1791, and has sometimes been cut and polished for ornamental purposes: it has a pretty colour and spangled appearance and takes a good polish, but is rather soft. At Pala it has been extensively mined for the preparation of lithium and rubidium salts. Other localities for the mineral are the island of Utö in Sweden, and Auburn and Paris in Maine, U.S.A.; at Alabashka near Mursinka in the Urals large isolated crystals have been found, and from Central Australia transparent cleavage sheets of a fine lilac colour are known.

The lithium-iron mica zinnwaldite or lithionite is closely allied to lepidolite, differing from it in containing some ferrous iron in addition to the constituents mentioned above. It occurs as greyish silvery scales with hexagonal outlines in the tin-bearing granites of Zinnwald in the Erzgebirge, Bohemia and of Cornwall.

(L. J. S.)

LEPIDOPTERA (Gr. λεπίς, a scale or husk, and πτερόν, a wing), a term used in zoological classification for one of the largest and best-known orders of the class Hexapoda (q.v.), in order that comprises the insects popularly called butterflies and moths. The term was first used by Linnaeus (1735) in the sense still accepted by modern zoologists, and there are few groups of animals as to whose limits and distinguishing characters less controversy has arisen.

After Edwards, Riley and Howard’s Insect Life, vol. 3 (U.S. Dept. Agr.).

Characters.—The name of the order indicates the fact that the wings (and other parts of the body) are clothed with flattened cuticular structures—the scales (fig. 7)—that may be regarded as modified arthropodan “hairs.” Such scales are not peculiar to the Lepidoptera—they are found also on many of the Aptera, on the Psocidae, a family of Corrodentia, on some Coleoptera (beetles) and on the gnats (Culicidae), a family of Diptera. The most distinctive structural features of the Lepidoptera are to be found in the jaws. The mandibles are mere vestiges or entirely absent; the second maxillae are usually reduced to a narrow transverse mentum which bears the scale-covered labial palps, between which project the elongate first maxillae, grooved on their inner faces, so as to form when apposed a tubular proboscis adapted for sucking liquid food.

All Lepidoptera are hatched as the eruciform soft-bodied type of larva (fig. 1, a) known as the caterpillar, with biting mandibles, three pairs of thoracic legs and with a variable number (usually five pairs) of abdominal prolegs, which carry complete or incomplete circles of hooklets. The pupa in a single family only is free (i.e. with the appendages free from the body), and mandibulate. In the vast majority of the order it is more or less obtect (i.e. with the appendages fixed to the cuticle of the body) and without mandibles (fig. 1, c).

From Riley and Howard, Insect Life, vol. 7 (U.S. Dept. Agr.).

After A. Walter (Jen. Zeits. f. Naturw. vol. 18).

a, Palp.

b, Galea.

c, Lacinia.

d, Stipes.

e, Cardo of maxilla.

Structure.—The head in the Lepidoptera is sub-globular in shape with the compound eyes exceedingly well developed, and with a pair of ocelli or “simple eyes” often present on the vertex. It is connected to the thorax by a relatively broad and membranous “neck.” The feelers are many-jointed, often they are complex, the segments bearing processes arranged in a comb-like manner and furnished with numerous sensory hairs (fig. 2). The complexity of the feelers is carried to its highest development in certain male moths that have a wonderful power of discovering their females by smell or some analogous sense. Often the feelers are excessively complex in male moths whose maxillae are so reduced that they take no food in the imaginal state. The nature of the jaws has already been briefly described. Functional mandibles of peculiar form (fig. 3, A) are present in the remarkable small moths of the genus Micropteryx (or Eriocephala), and there are vestiges of these jaws in other moths of low type, but the minute structures in the higher Lepidoptera that were formerly described as mandibles are now believed to belong to the labrum, the true mandibles being perhaps represented by rounded prominences, not articulated with the head-capsule. Throughout the order, as a whole, the jaws are adapted for sucking liquid food, and the suctorial proboscis (often erroneously called a “tongue”) is formed as was shown by J. C. Savigny in 1816 by two elongated and flexible outgrowths of the first maxillae, usually regarded as representing the outer lobes or galeae (fig. 4, A, B, g). These structures are grooved along their inner faces and by means of a series of interlocking hair-like bristles can be joined together so as to form a tubular sucker (fig. 4, C). At their extremities they are beset with club-like sense-organs, whose apparent function is that of taste. The proboscis when in use is stretched out in front of the head and inserted into the corolla of a flower or elsewhere, for the absorption of liquid nourishment. When at rest, the proboscis is rolled up into a close spiral beneath the head and between the labial palps (fig. 4, A, p). Only in the genus Micropteryx mentioned above is the lacinia of the maxilla (as A. Walter has shown) developed (fig. 3, B, c). The maxillary palp is usually a mere vestige (fig. 4, B, p) though it is conspicuous in a few families of small moths. A considerable number of Lepidoptera take no food in the imaginal state; in these the maxillae are reduced or altogether atrophied. The second maxillae are intimately fused together to form the labium, which consists only of a reduced mentum, bearing sometimes vestigial lobes and always a pair of palps. These have two or three segments and are clothed with scales. The form and direction of the terminal segment of the labial palp afford valuable characters in classification.

A, Front view of head.

c, Clypeus.

e, Compound eye.

m, Vestigial mandible.

l, Labrum.

g, Galeae of 1st maxillae.

p, Labial palp. Magnified, B.

b, Base of first maxilla dissected out of the head.

p, Vestigial palp.

g, Galea. Further magnified.

C, Part transverse section showing how the channel (A) of the proboscis is formed by the interlocking of the grooved inner faces of the flexible maxillae.

t, Air-tube.

n, Nerve.

m, Muscle-fibres. Highly magnified.

In the thorax of the Lepidoptera the foremost segment or prothorax is very small, and not movable on the mesothorax. In many families it carries a pair of small erectile plates—the patagia—which have been regarded as serially homologous with the wings. The mesothorax is extensive; its scutum forming most of the dorsal thoracic area and small plates—tegulae—are often present at the base of the forewings, as in Hymenoptera. The tegulae which are beset with long hair-like scales are often conspicuous. The metathorax is smaller than the mesothorax. The legs are of the typical hexapodan form with five-segmented feet; the shins often bear terminal and median spurs articulated at their bases and the entire limbs are clothed with scales.

After A. S. Packard, Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. vol. vii.

The wings of the Lepidoptera may be said to dominate the structure of the insect; only exceptionally, in certain female moths, are they vestigial or absent (fig. 17). The forewing, with its prominent apex, is longer than the hindwing, and the neuration in both (see figs. 5 and 6) is for the most part longitudinal, only a few transverse nervures, which are, in fact, branches of the median trunk, marking off a discoidal areolet or “cell” (fig. 5, a). The five branches of the radial nervure (figs. 5, 6, 3) (see Hexapoda) are usually present in the forewing, but the hindwing, in most families, has only a single radial nervure; its anal area is, however, often more strongly developed than that of the forewing. The two wings of a side are usually kept together during flight by a few stout bristles—the frenulum—(fig. 5, f) projecting from the base of the costa of the hindwing and fitting beneath a membranous fold or a few thickened scales—the retinaculum—on the under surface of the forewing. In butterflies there is no frenulum, but a costal outgrowth of the hindwing subserves the same function. In the most primitive moths a small lobate outgrowth—the jugum (fig. 6, j.)—from the dorsum of the forewing is present, but it can be of little service in keeping the two wings together. A jugum may be also present on the hindwing. The legs, which are generally used for clinging rather than for walking, have five-segmented feet and are covered with scales. In some families the front pair are reduced and without tarsal segments.

After Packard, Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. vol. vii.

Fig. 6.—Wing neuration of a Swift Moth (Hepialid). j, Jugum. Nervures numbered as in fig. 5. Note that there are five branches to the radial nervure (No. 3) in both fore- and hindwing, and that the median trunk nervures (No. 4) traverse the discoidal areolet.

Fig. 7.—A, Arrangement of scales in rows on wing of Butterfly. n, Nervure; c, collar-like outgrowths of cuticle. Magnified. B, single scale, and C, an androconium more highly magnified.

Ten abdominal segments are recognizable in many Lepidoptera, but the terminal segments are reduced or modified to form external organs of reproduction. In the male, according to the interpretation of C. Peytoureau, the lateral plates belonging to the ninth segment form paired claspers beset with harpes, or series of ridges or teeth, while the tergum of the tenth segment forms a dorsal hook—the uncus—and its sternum a ventral process or scaphium. In the female the terminal segments form, in some cases, a protrusible ovipositor, but the typical hexapodan ovipositor with its three pairs of processes is undeveloped in the Lepidoptera.

As already mentioned, the characteristic scales on the wings, legs and body of the Lepidoptera are cuticular structures. A complete series of transitional forms can be traced between the most elaborate flattened scales (fig. 7, B) with numerous longitudinal striae and a simple arthropod “hair.” Either a “hair” or a scale owes its origin to a special cell of the ectoderm (hypodermis), a process from which grows through the general cuticle and forms around itself the substance of the cuticular appendage. The scales on the wings are arranged in regular rows (fig. 7, A), and the general cuticle is drawn out into a narrow neck or collar around the base of each scale. The scales can be easily rubbed from the surface of the wing, and the series of collars in which the scales rest are then evident (fig. 7, A, c) on the wing-membrane. On the wings of many male butterflies there are specially modified scales—the androconia (fig. 7, C)—which are formed by glandular cells and diffuse a scented secretion. In some cases, the androconia are mixed among the ordinary scales; in others they are associated into conspicuous “brands” (see fig. 66). The admirable colours of the wings of the Lepidoptera are due partly to pigment in the scales—as in the case of yellows, browns, reds and blacks—partly to “interference” effects from the fine striae on the scales—as with the blues, purples and greens.

A few points of interest in the internal structure of the Lepidoptera deserve mention. The mouth opens into a sub-globular, muscular pharynx which is believed to suck the liquid food through the proboscis, and force it along the slender gullet into a crop-like enlargement or diverticulum of the fore-gut known as a “food-reservoir” or “sucking-stomach.” The true stomach is tubular, and beyond it lies the intestine into which open the three pairs of excretory (Malpighian) tubes. The terminal part of the intestine is of wide diameter, and in some cases gives off a short caecum. The brain and the sub-oesophageal ganglia are closely approximated; there are two or three thoracic and four (rarely five) abdominal ganglia. In the female each ovary has four ovarian tubes, in which the large egg-cells are enclosed in follicles and associated with nutritive cells. There is a special bursa which in the Hepialidae opens with the vagina on the eighth abdominal sternum. In the Micropterygidae, Enocraniidae and the lower Tineides, the duct of the bursa leads into the vagina, which still opens on the eighth sternum. But in most Lepidoptera, the bursa opens by a vestibule on the eighth sternum, distinct from the vagina, whose opening shifts back to the ninth, the duct of the bursa being connected with the vagina by a canal which opens opposite to the spermatheca. In the male, the two testes are usually fused into a single mass, and a pair of tubular accessory glands open into the vasa deferentia or into the ejaculatory duct. In a few families—the Hepialidae and Saturniidae for example—the testes retain the primitive paired arrangement. These details have been worked out by various students, among whom W. H. Jackson and W. Petersen deserve special mention. Summing up the developmental history of the genital ducts, Jackson remarks that there is “an Ephemeridal stage, which ends towards the close of larval life, an Orthopteran stage, indicated during the quiescent period preceding pupation, and a Lepidopteran stage which begins with the commencement of pupal life.”

Development.—Many observations have been made on the embryology of the Lepidoptera; for some of the more important results of these see Hexapoda. The post-embryonic development of Lepidoptera is more familiar, perhaps, than that of any other group of animals. The egg shows great variation in its outward form, the outer envelope or chorion being in some families globular, in others flattened, in others again erect and sub-conical or cylindrical; while its surface often exhibits a beautifully regular series of ribs and furrows. Throughout the order the larva is of the form known as the caterpillar (fig. 1, a, b, fig. 8 B) characterized by the presence of three pairs of jointed and clawed legs on the thorax and a variable number of pairs of abdominal “prolegs”—sub-cylindrical outgrowths of the abdominal segments, provided with a complete or incomplete circle of hooklets at the extremity.

Fig. 9.—Head of Goat Moth Caterpillar (Cossus) from behind. Magnified. (From Miall and Denny after Lyonnet.)

At, Feeler.

Mn, Mandible.

Mx, First maxilla.

Lm, Second maxillae (Labium) with spinneret.

There are ten abdominal segments—the ninth often small and concealed; prolegs are usually present on the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and tenth of these segments. The head of the caterpillar (fig. 9) is large with firmly chitinized cuticle; it carries usually twelve simple eyes or ocelli, a pair of short feelers (fig. 9 At) and a pair of strong mandibles (fig. 9, Mn), for the caterpillar feeds by biting leaves or other plant-tissues. The first maxillae, so highly developed in the imago, are in the larva small and inconspicuous appendages, each bearing two short jointed processes,—the galea and the palp (fig. 9, Mx). The second maxillae form a plate-like labium on whose surface projects the spinneret which is usually regarded as a modified hypopharynx (fig. 9, Lm). The silk-glands whose ducts open on this spinneret are paired convoluted tubes lying alongside the elongate cylindrical stomach. In the common “silkworm” these glands are five times as long as the body of the caterpillar. They are regarded as modified salivary glands, though the correspondence has been doubted by some students. The body of the caterpillar is usually cylindrical and wormlike, with the segmentation well marked and the cuticle feebly chitinized and flexible. Firm chitinous plates are, however, not seldom present on the prothorax and on the hindmost abdominal segment. The segments are mostly provided with bristle or spine-bearing tubercles, whose arrangement has lately been shown by H. G. Dyar to give partially trustworthy indications of relationship. On either side of the median line we find two dorsal or trapezoidal tubercles (Nos. 1 and 2), while around the spiracle are grouped (Nos. 3, 4 and 5) supra-, post-, and pre-spiracular tubercles; below are the sub-spiraculars, of which there may be two (Nos. 6, 7). The last-named is situated on the base of the abdominal proleg, and yet another tubercle (No. 8) may be present on the inner aspect of the proleg. The spiracles are very conspicuous on the body of a caterpillar, occurring on the prothorax and on the first eight abdominal segments. Various tubercles may become coalesced or aborted (fig. 10, B); often, in conjunction with the spines that they bear, the tubercles serve as a valuable protective armature for the caterpillar. Much discussion has taken place as to whether the abdominal prolegs are or are not developed directly from the embryonic abdominal appendages. In the more lowly families of Lepidoptera, these organs are provided at the extremity with a complete circle of hooklets, but in the more highly organized families, only the inner half of this circle is retained.

B, after Grote, Mitt. aus dem Roemer Museum, No. 6.

Fig. 10.—Abdominal segments of Caterpillars, to show arrangement of tubercles; the arrows point anteriorly. A, Generalized condition; B, specialized condition in the Saturniidae. s, Spiracle; the numbering of the tubercles is explained in the text. Note that in B No. 2 is much reduced and disappears after the first moult. 4 and 5 are coalesced, and 6 is absent.

The typical Lepidopteran pupa, or “chrysalis,” as shown in the higher families, is an obtect pupa (fig. 11) with no trace of mandibles, the appendages being glued to the body by an exudation, and motion being possible only at three of the abdominal intersegmental regions, the fifth and sixth abdominal segments at most being “free.” A flattened or pointed process—the cremaster—often prominent at the tail-end, may carry one or several hooks (fig. 1, d) which serve to anchor the pupa to its cocoon or to suspend butterfly-pupae from their pad of silk (fig. 11). In the lower families the pupa (fig. 1, c) is only incompletely obtect, and a greater number of abdominal segments can move on one another. The seventh abdominal segment is, in all female lepidopterous pupae, fused with those behind it; in the male “incomplete” pupa this becomes “free” and so may the segments anterior to it, in both sexes, forward to and including the third. The presence of circles of spines on the abdominal segments enables the “incomplete” pupa as a whole to work its way partly out of the cocoon when the time for the emergence of the imago draws near. In the family of the Eriocraniidae (often called the Micropterygidae) the pupa resembles that of a caddis-fly (Trichopteron) being active before the emergence of the imago and provided with strong mandibles by means of which it bites its way out of the cocoon. The importance of the pupa in the phylogeny and classification of the Lepidoptera has lately been demonstrated by T. A. Chapman in a valuable series of papers. Sometimes organs are present in the pupa which are undeveloped in the imago, such as the maxillary palps of the Sesiidae (clearwing moths) and the pectination on the feelers of female Saturniids. E. B. Poulton has drawn attention to the ancestral value of such characters.

Habits and Life-Relations.—The attractiveness of the Lepidoptera and the conspicuous appearance of many of them have led to numerous observations on their habits. The method of feeding of the imago by the suction of liquids has already been mentioned in connexion with the structure of the maxillae and the food-canal. Nectar from flowers is the usual food of moths and butterflies, most of which alight on a blossom before thrusting the proboscis into the corolla of the flower, while others—the hawk moths (Sphingidae) for example—remain poised in the air in front of the flower by means of excessively rapid vibration of the wings, and quickly unrolling the proboscis sip the nectar. Certain flowers with remarkably long tubular corollas seem to be specially adapted for the visits of hawk moths. Some Lepidoptera have other sources of food-supply. The juices of fruit are often sought for, and certain moths can pierce the envelope of a succulent fruit with the rough cuticular outgrowths at the tips of the maxillae, so as to reach the soft tissue within. Animal juices attract other Lepidoptera, which have been observed to suck blood from a wounded mammal; while putrid meat is a familiar “lure” for the gorgeous “purple emperor” butterfly (Apatura iris). The water of streams or the dew on leaves may be frequently sought by Lepidoptera desirous of quenching their thirst, possibly with fatal results, the insects being sometimes drowned in rivers in large numbers. Members of several families of the Lepidoptera—the Hepialidae, Lasiocampidae and Saturniidae, for example—have the maxillae vestigial or aborted, and take no food at all after attaining the winged condition. In such insects there is a complete “division of labour” between the larval and the imaginal instars, the former being entirely devoted to nutritive, the latter to reproductive functions.

Of much interest is the variety displayed among the Lepidoptera in the season and the duration of the various instars. The brightly coloured vanessid butterflies, for example, emerge from the pupa in the late summer and live through the winter in sheltered situations, reappearing to lay their eggs in the succeeding spring. Many species, such as the vapourer moths (Orgyia), lay eggs in the autumn, which remain unhatched through the winter. The eggs of the well-known magpie moths (Abraxas) hatch in autumn and the caterpillar hibernates while still quite small, awaiting for its growth the abundant food-supply to be afforded by the next year’s foliage. The codlin moths (Carpocapsa) pass the winter as resting full-grown larvae, which seek shelter and spin cocoons in autumn, but do not pupate until the succeeding spring. Lastly, many of the Lepidoptera hibernate in the pupal stage; the death’s head moth (Acherontia) and the cabbage-white butterflies (Pieris) are familiar examples of such. The last-named insects afford instances of the “double-brooded” condition, two complete life-cycles being passed through in the year. The flour moth (Ephestia kühniella) is said to have five successive generations in a twelvemonth. On the other hand, certain species whose larvae feed in wood or on roots take two or three years to reach the adult stage.

The rate of growth of the larva depends to a great extent on the nature of its food, and the feeding-habits of caterpillars afford much of interest and variety to the student. The contrast among the Lepidoptera between the suctorial mouth of the imago and the biting jaws of the caterpillar is very striking (cf. figs. 4 and 9), and the profound transformation in structure which takes place is necessarily accompanied by the change from solid to liquid food. The first meal of a young caterpillar is well known to be often its empty egg-shell; from this it turns to feed upon the leaves whereon its provident parent has laid her eggs. But in a few cases hatching takes place in winter or early spring, and the young larvae have then to find a temporary food until their own special plant is available. For example, the caterpillars of some species of Xanthia and other noctuid moths feed at first upon willow-catkins. On the other hand, the caterpillars of the pith moth (Blastodacna) hatched at midsummer, feed on leaves when young, and burrow into woody shoots in autumn. All who have tried to rear caterpillars know that, while those of some species will feed only on one particular species of plant, others will eat several species of the same genus or family, while others again are still less particular, some being able to feed on almost any green herb. It is curious to note how certain species change their food in different localities, a caterpillar confined to one plant in some localities being less particular elsewhere. Individual aberrations in food are of special interest in suggesting the starting-point for a change in the race. When we consider the vast numbers of the Lepidoptera and the structural modifications which they have undergone, their generally faithful adherence to a vegetable diet is remarkable. The vast majority of caterpillars eat leaves, usually devouring them openly, and, if of large size, quickly reducing the amount of foliage on the plant. But many small caterpillars keep, apparently for the sake of concealment, to the under surface of the leaf, while others burrow into the green tissue, forming a characteristic sinuous “mine” between the two leaf-skins. In several families we find the habit of burrowing in woody stems,—the “goat” (Cossus, fig. 8) and the clearwings (Sesiidae), for example, while others, like the larvae of the swift moths (Hepialidae) live underground devouring roots (fig. 12). The richer nutrition in the green food is usually shown by the quicker growth of the numerous caterpillars that feed on it, as compared with the slower development of the wood and root-feeding species. Aquatic larvae are very rare among the Lepidoptera. The caterpillars of the pyralid “china-mark” moths (Hydrocampa, fig. 13), however, live under water, feeding on duckweed (Lemna) and breathing atmospheric air, a film of which is enclosed in a spun-up shelter beneath the leaves, while the larvae of Paraponyx, which feed on Stratiotes, have closed spiracles and breathe dissolved air by means of branchial filaments along the sides of the body.

We may now turn to instances of more anomalous modes of feeding. The clothes moths (Tineids) have invaded our dwellings and found a congenial food-stuff for their larvae in our garments. A few small species of the same group are reared in meal and other human food-stores; so are the caterpillars of some pyralid moths (Ephestia), while others (Asopia, Aglossa) feed upon kitchen refuse. Two species of crambid moths (Aphomia sociella and Galleria melonella) find a home in bee-hives, where their caterpillars feed upon the wax, while the waxy secretion from the body of the great American lantern-fly (Fulgora candelaria) serves both as shelter and food for the caterpillar of the moth Epipyrops anomala. Very few caterpillars have developed a thoroughly carnivorous habit. That of Cosmia trapezina feeds on oak and other leaves, but devours smaller caterpillars which happen to get in its way, and if shaken from the tree, eats other larvae while climbing the trunk. Xylina ornithopus and a few other species are said to be always carnivorous when opportunity offers; the small looping caterpillar of a “pug” moth (Eupithecia coronata) has been observed to eat a larva three times as big as itself. The caterpillars of Orthosia pistacina live together in peace while their food is moist, but devour each other when it dries up; this is true cannibalism—a term which should not be applied to the habit of preying on another species. A few carnivorous caterpillars do not attack other caterpillars, but prey upon insects of another order; among these Fenescia tarquinius, which eats aphides, and Erastria scitula, which feeds upon scale insects, must be reckoned as benefactors to mankind. The life-history of the latter moth has been worked out by H. Rouzaud. It inhabits the shores of the Mediterranean, and its caterpillar devours the coccids upon various fruit-trees, especially the black-scale (Lecanium oleae) of the olive. The moth, which is a small noctuid, the white markings on whose wings give it the appearance of a bird-dropping when at rest in the daytime, appears in May, and lays her eggs, singly and far apart, upon the trees infested by the coccids. when hatched, the young caterpillar selects a large female coccid, eats its way through the scale, and devours the insect beneath; having done this it makes its way to a fresh victim. As it increases in size it forms a case for itself made of the scales of its victims, excrement, &c., bound together by silk which it spins, and, protected by this covering, which closely resembles the smut-covered bark of the tree, it roams about during its later stages, devouring several coccids every day. So nutritious is the food, that four or five successive broods follow each other through the summer.

After Marlatt (after Riley), Bull. 4, Div. Ent. U.S. Dept. Agr.

The habit just mentioned of forming some kind of protective covering out of foreign substances spun together by silk is practised by caterpillars of different families. The clothes moth larvae (Tinea, fig. 14), for example, make a tubular dwelling out of the pellets of wool passed from their own intestines, while the allied Tortricid caterpillars roll up leaves and spin for themselves cylindrical shelters. The habit of spinning over the food plant a protective mass of web, whereon the caterpillars of a family can live together socially is not uncommon. In the case of the small ermine moths (Hyponomeuta) the caterpillars remain associated throughout their lives and pupate in cocoons on the mass of web produced by their common labour. But the larger, spiny caterpillars of the vanessid butterflies usually scatter away from the nest of their infancy when they have attained a certain size.

Fig. 15.—Larva of Orgyia gonostigma. Europe.

Spines and hairs seem to be often effective protections for caterpillars; the experiments of E. B. Poulton and others tend to show that hairy caterpillars (fig. 15) are distasteful to birds. Many caterpillars are protected by the harmony of their general green coloration with their surroundings. When the insect attains a large size—as in the case of the hawk moth (Sphingid) caterpillars—the extensive green surface becomes broken up by diagonal dark markings (fig. 46b), thus simulating the effect of light and shade among the foliage. A remarkable result of Poulton’s experiments has been the establishment of a reflex effect through the skin on the colour of a caterpillar. Some species of “loopers” (Geometridae, fig. 43) for example, if placed when young among surroundings of a certain colour, become closely assimilated thereto—dark brown among dark twigs, green among green leaves. These colour-reflexes in conjunction with the elongate twig-like shape of the caterpillars and their habit of stretching themselves straight out from a branch, afford some of the best and most familiar examples of “protective resemblance.” The “terrifying attitude” of caterpillars, and the supposed resemblance borne by some of them to serpents and other formidable vertebrates or arthropods, are discussed in the article Mimicry.

After Ratzeburg, Insect Life, vol. 2 (U.S. Dept. Agr.).

Fig. 16.—Pupa of Gypsy Moth (Porthetria dispar) sheltered in leaves joined by silken threads. Below is the cast larval cuticle.

The silk produced by a caterpillar is, as we have seen, often advantageous in its own life-relations, but its great use is in connexion with the pupal stage. In the life-history of many Lepidoptera, the last act of the caterpillar is to spin a cocoon which may afford protection to the pupa. In some cases this is formed entirely of the silk produced by the spinning-glands, and may vary from the loose meshwork that clothes the pupa of the diamond-back moth (Plutella cruciferarum) to the densely woven cocoon of the silkworms (Bombycidae and Saturniidae) or the hard shell-like covering of the eggars (Lasiocampidae). Frequently foreign substances are worked up with the silk and serve to strengthen the cocoon, such as hairs from the body of the caterpillar itself, as among the “tigers” (Arctiidae) or chips of wood, as with the timber-burrowing larva of the “goat” (Cossus). In many families of Lepidoptera we can trace a degeneration of the cocoon. Thus, the pupae of most owl moths (Noctuidae) and hawk moths (Sphingidae) lie buried in an earthen cell. Among the butterflies we find that the cocoon is reduced to a pad of silk which gives attachment to the cremaster; in the Pieridae there is in addition a girdle of silk around the waist-region of the pupa, but the pupae of the Nymphalidae (figs. 11, 65) simply hang from the supporting pad by the tail-end. Poulton has shown that the colours of some exposed pupae vary with the nature of the surroundings of the larva during the final stage.

When the pupal stage is complete the insect has to make its way out of the cocoon. In the lower families of moths it is the pupa which comes out at least partially, working itself onwards by the spines on its abdominal segments; the pupa of the primitive Micropteryx has functional mandibles with which it bites through the cocoon. In the higher Lepidoptera the pupa is immovable, and the imago, after the ecdysis of the pupal cuticle, must emerge. This emergence is in some cases facilitated by the secretion of an acid or alkaline solvent discharged from the mouth or from the hind-gut, which weakens the cocoon—so that the delicate moth can break through without injury.

As might be expected, the conditions to which larva and pupa are subjected have often a marked influence on the nature of the imago. An indifferent food-supply for the larva leads to a dwarfing of the moth or butterfly. Many converging lines of experiment and observation tend to show that cool conditions during the pupal stage frequently induce darkening of pigment in the imago, while a warm temperature brightens the colours of the perfect insect. For example, in many species of butterfly that are double-brooded, the spring brood emerging from the wintering pupae are more darkly coloured than the summer brood, but if the pupae producing the latter be subjected artificially to cold conditions, the winter form of imago results. It is usually impossible, however, to produce the summer form of the species from wintering pupae by artificial heat. From this A. Weismann argued that the more stable winter form must be regarded as representing the ancestral race of the species. Further examples of this “seasonal dimorphism” are afforded by many tropical butterflies which possess a darker “wet-season” and a brighter “dry-season” generation. So different in appearance are often these two seasonal forms that before their true relationship was worked out they had been naturally regarded as independent species. The darkening of wing-patterns in many species of Lepidoptera has been carefully studied in our own British fauna. Melanic or melanochroic varieties are specially characteristic of western and hilly regions, and some remarkable dark races (fig. 43) of certain geometrid moths have arisen and become perpetuated in the manufacturing districts of the north of England. The production of these melanic forms is explained by J. W. Tutt and others as largely due to the action of natural selection, the damp and sooty conditions of the districts where they occur rendering unusually dark the surfaces—such as rocks, tree-trunks and palings—on which moths habitually rest and so favouring the survival of dark, and the elimination of pale varieties, as the latter would be conspicuous to their enemies. Breeding experiments have shown that these melanic races are sometimes “dominant” to their parent-stock. An evidently adaptive connexion can be frequently traced between the resting situation and attitude of the insect and the colour and pattern of its wings. Moths that rest with the hindwings concealed beneath the forewings (fig. 34, f) often have the latter dull and mottled, while the former are sometimes highly coloured. Butterflies whose normal resting attitude is with the wings closed vertically over the back (fig. 63) so that the under surface is exposed to view, often have this under surface mottled and inconspicuous although the upper surface may be bright with flashing colours. Various degrees of such “protective resemblance” can be traced, culminating in the wonderful “imitation” of its surroundings shown by the tropical “leaf-butterflies” (Kallima), the under surfaces of whose wings, though varying greatly, yet form in every case a perfect representation of a leaf in some stage or other of decay, the butterfly at the same time disposing of the rest of its body so as to bear out the deception. How this is effected is best told by A. R. Wallace, who was the first to observe it, in his work The Malay Archipelago:—

“The habit of the species is always to rest on a twig and among dead or dried leaves, and in this position, with the wings closely pressed together, their outline is exactly that of a moderately sized leaf slightly curved or shrivelled. The tail of the hindwings forms a perfect stalk and touches the stick, while the insect is supported by the middle pair of legs, which are not noticed among the twigs and fibres that surround it. The head and antennae are drawn back between the wings so as to be quite concealed, and there is a little notch hollowed out at the very base of the wings, which allows the head to be retracted sufficiently.”

But the British Vanessids often rest on a bare patch of ground with the brightly coloured upper surface of their wings fully exposed to view, and even make themselves still more conspicuous by fanning their wings up and down. Some genera and families of Lepidoptera, believed to secrete noxious juices that render them distasteful, are adorned with the staring contrasts of colour usually regarded as “warning,” while other genera, belonging to harmless families sought for as food by birds and lizards, are believed to obtain complete or partial immunity by their likeness to the conspicuous noxious groups. (See Mimicry.)

Fig. 17.—Vapourer Moth (Ocneria detrita). S. Europe. A, Male; B, Female.

Sexual dimorphism is frequent among the Lepidoptera. In many families this takes the form of more elaborate feelers in the male than in the female moth. Such complex feelers (fig. 2) bear numerous sensory (olfactory) nerve-endings and give to the males that possess them a wonderful power of discovering their mates. A single captive female of the Endromidae or Lasiocampidae often causes hundreds of males of her species to “assemble” around her prison, and this character is made use of by collectors who want to secure specimens. In many butterflies—notably the “blues” (Lycaenidae)—the male is brilliant while the female is dull, and in other groups (the Danainae for example) he is provided with scent-producing glands believed to be “alluring” in function. The apparent evidence given by the sexual differences among the Lepidoptera in favour of C. Darwin’s theory of sexual selection finds no support from a study of their habits. The male indeed usually seeks the female, but she appears to exercise no choice in pairing. In some cases the female is attracted by the male, and here a modified form of sexual selection appears to be operative. The ghost swift moth (Hepialus humuli) affords a curious and interesting example of this condition, the female showing the usual brown and buff coloration of her genus, while the wings of the male are pure white, rendering him conspicuous in the dusky evening when pairing takes place. But in the northernmost haunts of the species, where there is no midsummer night, the male closely resembles the female in wing patterns, the development of the conspicuous white being needless. A very interesting sexual dimorphism is seen in the wingless condition of several female moths—the winter moths (Hybernia and Cheimatobia) among the Geometridae and the vapourers (Orgyia and Ocneria) among the Lymantriidae for example (fig. 17). It might be thought that the loss of power of flight by the female would seriously restrict the range of the species. In such insects, however, the caterpillars are often active and travel far.

Distribution and Migration.—The range of the Lepidoptera is practically world-wide; they are absent from the most remote and inhospitable of the arctic and antarctic lands, but even Kerguelen possesses a few small indigenous moths. Many of the large and dominant families have a range wide as that of the order, and certain species that have attached themselves to man—like the meal moths and the clothes moths—have become almost cosmopolitan. Interesting and suggestive restrictions of range can, however, be often traced. Although butterflies have been found in 82° N. latitude in Greenland, they are unknown in Iceland, and only a few species of the group reach New Zealand. Three large sections—the Ithomiinae, Heliconiinae and Brassolinae—of the great butterfly family Nymphalidae are peculiar to the Neotropical region, while the Morphinae, a characteristically South American group, have a few Oriental genera in India and Indo-Malaya. The Acraeinae, another section of the same family, have the vast majority of their species in Ethiopian Africa, but are represented eastwards in the Oriental and Australian regions and westwards in South America. A comparison of the lepidopterous faunas of Ireland, Great Britain and the European continent is very instructive, and suggests strongly that, despite their power of flight the Lepidoptera are mostly dependent on land-connexions for the extension of their range. For example, Ireland has only forty of the seventy species of British butterflies. The range of many Lepidoptera is of course determined by the distribution of the plants on which their larvae feed.

Nevertheless certain species of powerful flight, and some that might be thought feeble on the wing, often cross sea-channels and establish or reinforce distant colonies. Caterpillars of the great death’s head moth (Acherontia atropos) are found every summer feeding in British and Irish potato fields, but it is doubtful if any of the pupae resulting from them survive the winter in our climate. It is believed by Tutt that the species is only maintained by a fresh immigration of moths from the South each summer. Hosts of white butterflies (Pieris) have been frequently observed crossing the English Channel from France to Kent. Migrating swarms of Lepidoptera have often been met by sailors in mid-ocean; thus, Tutt records the presence around a sailing ship in the Atlantic of such a swarm of the rather feeble moth Deiopeia pulchella, nearly 1000 m. from its nearest known habitat. This migratory instinct is connected with the gregarious habits of many Lepidoptera. For example, H. W. Bates states that at one place in South America he noticed eighty different species flying about in enormous numbers in the sunshine, and these, with few exceptions, were males, the females remaining within the forest shades. Darwin describes a “butterfly shower,” which he observed 10 m. off the South American coast, extending as far as the eye could reach; “even by the aid of the telescope,” he adds, “it was not possible to see a space free from butterflies.” Sir J. Emerson Tennent, witnessed in Ceylon a mighty host of butterflies of white or pale yellow hue, “apparently miles in breadth and of such prodigious extension as to occupy hours and even days uninterruptedly in their passage.” Observations at Heligoland by H. Gätke have shown that migrating moths “travel under the same conditions as migrating birds, and for the most part in their company, in an east to west direction; they fly in swarms, the numbers of which defy all attempts at computation and can only be expressed by millions.” The painted lady butterfly (Pyrameis cardui) comes in repeated swarms from the Mediterranean region into northern and western Europe, while in North America companies of the monarch (Anosia archippus) invade Canada every summer from the United States, and are believed to return southwards in autumn. This latter species has, during the last half-century, extended its range south-westwards across the Pacific and reached the Austro-Malayan islands, while several specimens have occurred in southern and western England, though it has not established itself on this side of the Atlantic. It is noteworthy that the introduction of its food-plant—Asclepias—into the Sandwich Islands in 1850 apparently enabled it to spread across the Pacific.

Fossil History.—Our knowledge of the geological history of the Lepidoptera is but scanty. Certain Oolitic fossil insects from the lithographic stone of Solenhofen, Bavaria, have been described as moths, but it is only in Tertiary deposits that undoubted Lepidoptera occur, and these, all referable to existing families, are very scarce. Most of them come from the Oligocene beds of Florissant, Colorado, and have been described by S. H. Scudder. The paucity of Lepidoptera among the fossils is not surprising when we consider the delicacy of their structure, and though their past history cannot be traced back beyond early Cainozoic times, we can have little doubt from the geographical distribution of some of the families that the order originated with the other higher Endopterygota in the Mesozoic epoch.