Encyclopaedia Britannica_ 11th Edition_ _Lord Chamberlain_ to _Luqman_ Various 1645 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Encyclopaedia Britannica,
11th Edition, "Lord Chamberlain" to "Luqman"
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Lord Chamberlain" to
"Luqman"

Author: Various

Release date: August 9, 2013 [eBook #43427]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43427

Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "LORD
CHAMBERLAIN" TO "LUQMAN" ***

Transcriber’s note: A few typographical errors have been corrected.
They appear in the text like this, and the
explanation will appear when the mouse pointer is
moved over the marked passage. Sections in Greek
will yield a transliteration when the pointer is
moved over them, and words using diacritic
characters in the Latin Extended Additional block,
which may not display in some fonts or browsers,
will display an unaccented version.

Links to other EB articles: Links to articles
residing in other EB volumes will be made
available when the respective volumes are
introduced online.

THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

ELEVENTH EDITION

1768-
FIRST edition, published in three volumes,
1771.
1777-
SECOND ” ” ten ”
1784.
1788-
THIRD ” ” eighteen ”
1797.
1801-
FOURTH ” ” twenty ”
1810.
1815-
FIFTH ” ” twenty ”
1817.
1823-
SIXTH ” ” twenty ”
1824.
1830-
SEVENTH ” ” twenty-one ”
1842.
1853-
EIGHTH ” ” twenty-two ”
1860.
1875-
NINTH ” ” twenty-five ”
1889.
ninth edition and eleven supplementary 1902-
TENTH ”
volumes, 1903.
1910-
ELEVENTH ” published in twenty-nine volumes,
1911.

COPYRIGHT

in all countries subscribing to the
Bern Convention

by

THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS

of the

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

All rights reserved

THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A

DICTIONARY
OF

ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL

INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XVII

LORD CHAMBERLAIN to MECKLENBURG

New York

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
342 Madison Avenue

Copyright, in the United States of America, 1910,
by
The Encyclopædia Britannica Company.

VOLUME XVI SLICE I

L to Lamellibranchia

Articles in This Slice

LORD CHAMBERLAIN LÖWE, JOHANN KARL GOTTFRIED
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE LOWELL, ABBOTT LAWRENCE
LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN LOWELL, CHARLES RUSSELL
LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR LOWELL, JAMES RUSSELL
LORD HIGH CONSTABLE LOWELL, JOHN
LORD HIGH STEWARD LOWELL (Massachusetts, U.S.A.)
LORD HIGH TREASURER LOWELL INSTITUTE
LORD HOWE LÖWENBERG
LORD JUSTICE CLERK LÖWENSTEIN
LORD JUSTICE-GENERAL LOWESTOFT
LORD KEEPER OF THE GREAT LOWIN, JOHN
SEAL
LORD MAYOR’S DAY LOWLAND
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE LOWNDES, THOMAS
COUNCIL
LORDS JUSTICES OF APPEAL LOWNDES, WILLIAM THOMAS
LORDS OF APPEAL IN ORDINARY LOW SUNDAY
LORD STEWARD LOWTH, ROBERT
LORÉ, AMBROISE DE LOXODROME
LORE LOYALISTS or TORIES
LORELEI LOYALTY
LORETO (Italy) LOYALTY ISLANDS
LORETO (Peru) LOYOLA, ST IGNATIUS OF
LORIENT LOZENGE
LORINER LOZÈRE
LORIS LUANG-PRABANG
LORIS-MELIKOV, MICHAEL LUBAO
TARIELOVICH
LORIUM LÜBBEN
LÖRRACH LÜBECK

LORRAINE LUBLIN (government of Poland)
LORTZING, GUSTAV ALBERT LUBLIN (town of Poland)
LORY, CHARLES LUBRICANTS
LORY LUBRICATION
LOS ANDES LUCAN
LOS ANGELES LUCANIA
LOS ISLANDS LUCARIS, CYRILLUS
LOSSIEMOUTH LUCARNE
LOSSING, BENSON JOHN LUCAS, SIR CHARLES
LÖSSNITZ LUCAS, CHARLES
LOST PROPERTY LUCAS, JOHN SEYMOUR
LOSTWITHIEL LUCAS VAN LEYDEN
LOT (Biblical) LUCCA
LOT (Franch river) LUCCA, BAGNI DI
LOT (Franch department) LUCCEIUS, LUCIUS
LOT-ET-GARONNE LUCCHESINI, GIROLAMO
LOTHAIR I. LUCENA (southern Spain)
LOTHAIR II. or III. LUCERA (Italy)
LOTHAIR (king of France) LUCERNE (Swiss canton)
LOTHAIR (king of Lotharingia) LUCERNE (Swiss town)
LOTHIAN, EARLS AND LUCERNE, LAKE OF
MARQUESSES OF
LOTHIAN LUCERNE (plant)
LOTI, PIERRE LUCHAIRE, DENIS JEAN ACHILLE
LÖTSCHEN PASS LUCHU ARCHIPELAGO
LOTTERIES LUCIA (or Lucy), ST
LOTTI, ANTONIO LUCIAN (Christian martyr)
LOTTO, LORENZO LUCIAN (Greek satirist)
LOTTO LUCIFER (bishop of Cagliari)
LOTUS LUCIFER (planet)
LOTUS-EATERS LUCILIUS, GAIUS
LOTZE, RUDOLF HERMANN LUCILIUS JUNIOR

LOUBET, ÉMILE FRANÇOIS LUCINA
LOUDON, ERNST GIDEON LUCIUS
LOUDOUN, JOHN CAMPBELL LUCK
LOUDUN LÜCKE, GOTTFRIED CHRISTIAN
FRIEDRICH
LOUGHBOROUGH LUCKENWALDE
LOUGHREA LUCKNOW
LOUGHTON LUÇON
LOUHANS LUCRE
LOUIS (name) LUCRETIA
LOUIS I. (Roman emperor) LUCRETILIS MONS
LOUIS II. (Roman emperor) LUCRETIUS
LOUIS III. (Roman emperor) LUCRINUS LACUS
LOUIS IV., or V. (Roman emperor) LUCULLUS
LOUIS (king of the East Franks) LUCUS FERONIAE
LOUIS I. (king of Bavaria) LUCY, RICHARD DE
LOUIS II. (king of Bavaria) LUCY, SIR THOMAS
LOUIS II. (king of France) LUDDITES
LOUIS III. (king of France) LÜDENSCHEID
LOUIS IV. (king of France) LUDHIANA
LOUIS V. LUDINGTON
LOUIS VI. LUDLOW, EDMUND
LOUIS VII. LUDLOW (town)
LOUIS VIII. LUDLOW GROUP
LOUIS IX. LUDOLF (or Leutholf), HIOB
LOUIS X. LUDWIG, KARL FRIEDRICH
WILHELM
LOUIS XI. LUDWIG, OTTO
LOUIS XII. LUDWIGSBURG
LOUIS XIII. LUDWIGSHAFEN
LOUIS XIV. LUDWIGSLUST
LOUIS XV. LUG
LOUIS XVI. LUGANO

LOUIS XVII. LUGANO, LAKE OF
LOUIS XVIII. LUGANSK
LOUIS I. (king of Hungary) LUGARD, SIR FREDERICK JOHN
DEALTRY
LOUIS II. (king of Hungary) LUGO (Spanish province)
LOUIS (kings of Naples) LUGO (Spanish town)
LOUIS (king of the Franks) LUGOS
LOUIS OF NASSAU LUGUDUNUM
LOUIS, JOSEPH DOMINIQUE LUINI, BERNARDINO
LOUIS PHILIPPE I. LUKE
LOUISBURG LUKE, GOSPEL OF ST
LOUISE LULEÅ
LOUISE OF SAVOY LULL (or Lully), RAIMON
LOUISIADE ARCHIPELAGO LULLABY
LOUISIANA (U.S.A. state) LULLY, JEAN-BAPTISTE
LOUISIANA (U.S.A. city) LUMBAGO
LOUISIANA PURCHASE LUMBER
LOUISVILLE LUMBINĪ
LOULÉ LUMP-SUCKER
LOURDES LUMSDEN, SIR HARRY BURNETT
LOURENÇO MARQUES LUNA, ÁLVARO DE
LOUSE LUNA
LOUTH (Leinster, Ireland) LUNATION
LOUTH (Lincolnshire, England) LUNAVADA
LOUVAIN LUNCHEON
LOUVER LUND, TROELS FREDERIK
LOUVET, JEAN LUND
LOUVET DE COUVRAI, JEAN LUNDY, BENJAMIN
BAPTISTE
LOUVIERS LUNDY, ROBERT
LOUVOIS, FRANÇOIS MICHEL LE LUNDY
TELLIER
LOUŸS, PIERRE LÜNEBURG

LOVAT, SIMON FRASER LÜNEBURGER HEIDE
LOVE-BIRD LUNETTE
LOVEDALE LUNÉVILLE
LOVELACE, RICHARD LUNG (anatomy)
LOVELL, FRANCIS LOVELL LUNG (symbolical creature)
LOVER, SAMUEL LUNGCHOW
LOVERE LUNGE, GEORG
LOW, SETH LUPERCALIA
LOW, WILL HICOK LUPINE
LOWBOY LUPUS, PUBLIUS RUTILIUS
LOW CHURCHMAN LUPUS
LOWE, SIR HUDSON LUQMĀN

INITIALS USED IN VOLUME XVI. TO IDENTIFY
INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTORS,1 WITH THE HEADINGS OF THE
ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME SO SIGNED.

A. C. Albert Charles Lewis Gotthilf
G. Gunther, M.A., M.D., Ph.D., F.R.S.
Keeper of Zoological Department,
British Museum, 1875-1895. Gold
Mackerel (in part).
Medalist, Royal Society, 1878.
Author of Catalogues of Colubrine
Snakes, Batrachia salientia, and
Fishes in the British Museum; &c.

A. C. Algernon Charles Swinburne. Marlowe,
S. See the biographical article: Christopher;
Swinburne, Algernon Charles.
Mary, Queen of
Scots.

A. E. Arthur Ernest Jolliffe, M.A.
J. Fellow, Tutor and Mathematical
Maxima;
Lecturer, Corpus Christi College,
Oxford. Senior Mathematical Minima.
Scholar, 1892.

A. F. P. Albert Frederick Pollard, M.A.,
F.R.Hist.Soc. Professor of English
History in University of London.
Fellow of All Souls’ College, Macalpine, John.
Oxford. Author of England under
the Protector Somerset; Henry VIII.;
&c.

A. G. Arthur George Doughty, C.M.G.,
D. M.A., Litt.D., F.R.Hist.S.
Dominion Archivist of Canada.
Member of the Geographical Board
McGee, T. A.
of Canada. Author of The Cradle of
New France; &c. Joint-editor of
Documents relating to the
Constitutional History of Canada.

A. Ha. Adolf Harnack. Manichaeism (in
See the biographical article: part);
Harnack, Adolf.
Marcion.

A. H. Rev. Andrew Hollingsworth Frost, Magic Square.
F. M.A.

Principal of Church Missionary
College, Islington, 1870-1874.

A. H. Rev. Archibald Henry Sayce, LL.D.,
S. Litt.D. Lycia;
See the biographical article: Sayce, Lydia.
Archibald Henry.

A. H.- Sir A. Houtum-Schindler, C.I.E.
S. General in the Persian Army. Author Mazandaran.
of Eastern Persian Irak.

A. J. Arthur James Grant, M.A.
G.* King’s College, Cambridge. Louis XIII., XIV. and
Professor of History in the XV. of France.
University of Leeds.

A. J. Alfred J. Hipkins, F.S.A.
H. (1826-1903). Formerly Member of
Council and Hon. Curator of the
Royal College of Music, London.
Member of Committee of the Lute (in part);
Inventions and Music Exhibition, Lyre (in part).
1885; of the Vienna Exhibition,
1892; and of the Paris Exhibition,
1900. Author of Musical
Instruments; &c.

A. M. Agnes Mary Clerke. Maskelyne;
C. See the biographical article: Clerke, Mayer, Johann
A. M.
Tobias.

A. M. Agnes Muriel Clay
Cl. (Mrs Edward Wilde). Formerly
Resident Tutor of Lady Margaret Magistrate.
Hall, Oxford. Joint-editor of Sources
of Roman History, 133-79 B.C.

A. M. Rev. Andrew Martin Fairbairn, M.A.,
F. D.D., LL.D.
Martineau, James.
See the biographical article:
Fairbairn, A. M.

A. N. Alfred Newton, F.R.S. Lory;
See the biographical article: Love-Bird;
Newton, Alfred.
Lyre-Bird;
Macaw;
Magpie;
Mallemuck;
Manakin;
Manucode;
Martin.

A. N. Alfred North Whitehead, M.A., D.Sc,
W. F.R.S.
Fellow and Senior Lecturer in
Mathematics.
Mathematics, Trinity College,
Cambridge. Author of A Treatise on
Universal Algebra.

A. R. Alexander Ross Clarke, C.B., F.R.S.
C. Colonel R.E. Royal Medal of Royal Map: Projections (in
Society, 1887. In charge of
Trigonometrical Operations of the part).
Ordnance Survey, 1854-1881.

A. R. Arthur Robert Ling, F.I.C.
L.* Editor of the Journal of the Institute
of Brewing. Lecturer on Brewing
Malt.
and Malting at the Sir John Cass
Institute, London. Vice-President of
the Society of Chemical Industry.

A. Sl. Arthur Shadwell, M.A., M.D., LL.D.
Member of Council of
Epidemiological Society. Author of Malaria (in part);
The London Water-Supply; Massage.
Industrial Efficiency; Drink,
Temperance and Legislation.

A. Sy. Arthur Symons.
See the biographical article: Symons, Mallarmé, Stéphane.
Arthur.

A. Wa. Arthur Waugh, M.A.
Managing Director of Chapman &
Hall, Ltd., Publishers. Formerly
Literary Adviser to Kegan Paul &
Co. Author of Alfred Lord Tennyson; Lytton, 1st Baron.
Legends of the Wheel; Robert
Browning in “Westminster
Biographies.” Editor of Johnson’s
Lives of the Poets.

A. W. Arthur William Holland. Louis I., II., III. and
H.* Formerly Scholar of St John’s IV.: Roman
College, Oxford. Bacon Scholar of
Gray’s Inn, 1900. Emperors;
Louis the German;
Louis II. and III. of
France;
Louis the Child;

Magna Carta;
Maximilian I.:
Roman Emperor.

A. W. Rev. Arthur Wollaston Hutton, M.A.
Hu. Rector of Bow Church, London.
Formerly Librarian of the National Manning, Cardinal.
Liberal Club. Author of Life of
Cardinal Manning; &c.

A. W. Arthur William Moore, C.V.O., M.A.
M. (1853-1909). Trinity College,
Cambridge. Formerly Speaker of the
Man, Isle of.
House of Keys, and J.P. for the Isle
of Man. Author of A History of the
Isle of Man; &c.

A. W. Alexander Wood Renton, M.A., LL.B.
R. Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court
Maxims, Legal.
of Ceylon. Editor of Encyclopaedia
of the Laws of England.

B. W. Benjamin Williamson, M.A., D.Sc.,
F.R.S.
Professor of Natural Philosophy, and
Maclaurin, Colin.
Vice-Provost of Trinity College,
Dublin. Author of Differential
Calculus; &c.

C. A. Charles Augustus Maude Fennell,
M. F. M.A., Litt.D.
Formerly Fellow of Jesus College, Magic Square (in
Cambridge. Editor of Pindar’s Odes
and Fragments, and of the Stanford part).
Dictionary of Anglicized Words and
Phrases.

C. B. Catherine Beatrice Phillips, B.A. Louis XVIII. of
P. (Mrs W. Alison Phillips). Associate France;
of Bedford College, London.
Marie Antoinette.

C. Ch. Charles Chree, M.A., LL.D., D.Sc.,
F.R.S.
Superintendent, Kew Observatory.
Magnetism,
Formerly Fellow of King’s College,
Cambridge. President of Physical Terrestrial.
Society of London. Watt Medallist,
Institute of Civil Engineers, 1905.

C. F. Charles Francis Atkinson.
A. Formerly Scholar of Queen’s
College, Oxford. Captain, 1st City
Machine-Gun.
of London (Royal Fusiliers). Author
of The Wilderness and Cold
Harbour.

C. F. Charles Frederick Close, C.M.G.
Cl. Lieutenant-Colonel, R.E. Head of
the Geographical Section, British
General Staff. Formerly British Map: Projections (in
Representative on the Nyasa- part).
Tanganyika Boundary Commission.
Author of Text-Book of
Topographical Surveying; &c.

C. G. Charles George Crump, M.A.
Cr. Balliol College, Oxford. Clerk in
Manor: in England.
H.M. Public Record Office, London.
Editor of Landor’s Works; &c.

C. H. Carlton Huntley Hayes, A.M., Ph.D.
Ha. Assistant Professor of History in Matilda, Countess of
Columbia University, New York Tuscany;
City. Member of the American Lucius.
Historical Association.

C. L. Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, M.A.,
K. F.R.Hist.S., F.S.A.
Assistant Secretary to the Board of Lovell, Viscount;
Education. Author of Life of Henry Margaret of Anjou.
V. Editor of Chronicles of London
and Stow’s Survey of London.

C. M. Carl Theodor Mirbt, D.Th.
Professor of Church History in the Lyons, Councils of;
University of Marburg. Author of
Marburg, Colloquy
Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregor VII.;
Quellen zur Geschichte des of.
Papstthums; &c.

C. Pf. Christian Pfister, D. ès L.
Professor at the Sorbonne, Paris.
Chevalier of the Legion of Honour. Mayor of the Palace.
Author of Études sur le règne de
Robert le Pieux.

C. R. Charles Raymond Beazley, M.A.,
B. D.Litt.
Professor of Modern History in the
University of Birmingham.
Magellan;
Formerly Fellow of Merton College,
Oxford. University Lecturer in the Marignolli (in part).
History of Geography. Author of
Henry the Navigator; The Dawn of
Modern Geography; &c.

D. B. Duncan Black Macdonald, M.A., D.D.
Ma. Professor of Semitic Languages,
Hartford Theological Seminary, Mahommedan
U.S.A. Author of Development of Institutions;
Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence Mahommedan Law;
and Constitutional Theory; Malik Ibn Anas.
Religious Attitude and Life in Islam;
&c.

D. F. Donald Francis Tovey.
T. Author of Essays in Musical
Analysis, comprising The Classical Madrigal (in music);
Concerto, The Goldberg Variations Mass (in music).
and analyses of many other classical
works.

D. G. David George Hogarth, M.A.
H. Fellow of Magdalen College,
Oxford. Fellow of the British Magnesia;
Academy. Keeper of the Ashmolean Malatia;
Museum, Oxford. Excavated at
Manisa;
Paphos, 1888; Naucratis, 1899 and
1903; Ephesus, 1904-1905; Assiut, Marash;
1906-1907; Director, British School Maronites.
at Athens, 1897-1900; Director,
Cretan Exploration Fund, 1899.

D. H. David Hannay.
Formerly British Vice-Consul at Marryat, Frederick;
Barcelona. Author of Short History Mast;
of the Royal Navy; Life of Emilio Mathews, Thomas.
Castelar; &c.

D. Mn. Rev. Dugald Macfadyen, M.A. Mackennal,
Minister of South Grove Alexander.
Congregational Church, Highgate.

Author of Constructive
Congregational Ideals; &c.

D. M. Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace,
W. K.C.I.E., K.C.V.O.
Extra Groom of the Bedchamber to
H.M. King George V. Director of the
Foreign Department of The Times,
1891-1899. Member of Institut de
Droit International and Officier de Loris-Melikov.
l’Instruction Publique of France.
Joint-editor of New Volumes (10th
ed.) of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica. Author of Russia; Egypt
and the Egyptian Question; The Web
of Empire; &c.

D. S. David Samuel Margoliouth, M.A.,
M.* D.Litt.
Laudian Professor of Arabic,
Oxford. Fellow of New College.
Mahomet.
Author of Arabic Papyri of the
Bodleian Library; Mohammed and
the Rise of Islam; Cairo, Jerusalem
and Damascus.

E. A. E. Alfred Jones.
J. Author of Old English Gold Plate;
Old Church Plate of the Isle of Man;
Old Silver Sacramental Vessels of
Foreign Protestant Churches in
Mace.
England; Illustrated Catalogue of
Leopold de Rothschild’s Collection
of Old Plate; A Private Catalogue of
the Royal Plate at Windsor Castle;
&c.

E. Bn. Eduard Bernstein.
Member of the German Reichstag,
Marx.
1902-1906. Author of Zur Theorie
und Geschichte des Socialismus; &c.

E. C. Rt. Rev. Edward Cuthbert Butler,
B. O.S.B., D.Litt. Mabillon;
(Dubl.). Abbot of Downside Abbey,
Maurists;
Bath. Author of the Lausiac History
of Palladius, in “Cambridge Texts Mechitharists.
and Studies.”

E. G. Edmund Gosse, LL.D., D.C.L. Loti, Pierre;
See the biographical article: Gosse, Lyrical Poetry;
Edmund.
Macaronics;
Madrigal (in verse);
Maeterlinck.

E. Gr. Ernest Arthur Gardner, M.A. Mantinela (in part);
See the biographical article:
Gardner, Percy. Marathon (in part).

E. G. Ernest George Ravenstein, M.A., Ph.D.
R. Professor of Geography at Bedford
College, London, 1882-1883.
Formerly in Topographical (now Map (in part).
Intelligence) Department of the War
Office. Author of The Russians on
the Amur; A Systematic Atlas; &c.

E. H. Ellis Hovell Minns, M.A.
M. University Lecturer in Palaeography,
Cambridge. Lecturer and Assistant
Massagetae.
Librarian at Pembroke College,
Cambridge. Formerly Fellow of
Pembroke College.

E. L. Sir Edward Leader Williams
W. (1828-1910). Formerly Vice-
President, Institute of Civil
Engineers. Consulting Engineer,
Manchester Ship Canal. Chief Manchester Ship
Engineer of the Manchester Ship Canal.
Canal during its construction.
Author of papers printed in
Proceedings of Institute of Civil
Engineers.

E. M. Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, G.C.B.,
T. I.S.O., D.C.L., Litt.D., LL.D.
Director and Principal Librarian,
British Museum, 1898-1909.
Sandars Reader in Bibliography,
Cambridge, 1895-1896. Hon. Fellow
of University College, Oxford. Manuscript.
Correspondent of the Institute of
France and of the Royal Prussian
Academy of Sciences. Author of
Handbook of Greek and Latin
Palaeography. Editor of Chronicon
Angliae.

E. O.* Edmund Owen, M.B., F.R.C.S., LL.D.,
D.Sc.
Consulting Surgeon to St Mary’s
Hospital, London, and to the Lung;
Children’s Hospital, Great Ormond
Lupus;
Street, London. Chevalier of the
Legion of Honour. Late Examiner in Mammary Gland:
Surgery at the Universities of Diseases.
Cambridge, London and Durham.
Author of A Manual of Anatomy for
Senior Students.

E. Pr. Edgar Prestage.
Special Lecturer in Portuguese
Literature in the University of
Manchester. Examiner in Portuguese
in the Universities of London,
Manchester, &c. Commendador, Macedo;
Portuguese Order of S. Thiago. Manuel de Mello.
Corresponding Member of Lisbon
Royal Academy of Sciences, Lisbon
Geographical Society, &c. Editor of
Letters of a Portuguese Nun;
Azurara’s Chronicle of Guinea; &c.

E. R. Edwyn Robert Bevan, M.A.
B. Formerly Scholar of New College,
Macedonian Empire;
Oxford. Author of House of
Seleucus; Jerusalem under the High Lysimachus.
Priests.

E. Tn. Rev. Ethelred Luke Taunton
(d. 1907). Author of The English
Loyola.
Black Monks of St Benedict; History
of the Jesuits in England.

E. W. Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,
B. N. M.A.
Librarian of the Bodleian Library,
Oxford. Principal Librarian and Mandevllle, Sir John.
Superintendent of the London
Institution, 1873-1882. Author of
Keltic Researches.

F. A. P. Frederick Apthorp Paley, LL.D.
See the biographical article: Paley, Lucian.
F. A.

F. C. Frederic Cornwallis Conybeare, M.A.,
C. D.Th.
(Giessen). Fellow of the British
Academy. Formerly Fellow of Manichaeism (in
University College, Oxford. Author part).
of The Ancient Armenian Texts of
Aristotle; Myth, Magic and Morals;
&c.

F. G. Frederick George Meeson Beck, M.A.
M. B. Fellow and Lecturer in Classics, Lothian.
Clare College, Cambridge.

F. G. Frederick Gymer Parsons, F.R.C.S.,
P. F.Z.S., F.R. Anthrop. Inst.
Vice-President, Anatomical Society Lymphatic System
of Great Britain and Ireland. (in part);
Lecturer on Anatomy at St Thomas’s
Hospital and the London School of Mammary Gland:
Medicine for Women. Formerly Anatomy.
Hunterian Professor at the Royal
College of Surgeons.

F. J. H. Francis John Haverfield, M.A., LL.D. Lugudunum;
Camden Professor of Ancient

History at Oxford University. Fellow Mancunium.
of Brasenose College, Oxford.
Fellow of the British Academy.
Member of the German Imperial
Archaeological Institute. Formerly
Senior Censor, Student, Tutor and
Librarian of Christ Church, Oxford.
Ford’s Lecturer, 1906. Author of
Monographs on Roman History, &c.

F. J. S. Frederick John Snell, M.A.
Balliol College, Oxford. Author of Lydgate.
The Age of Chaucer; &c.

F. K. Fernand Khnopff.
See the biographical article: Madou.
Khnopff, Fernand E. J. M.

F. Ll. Francis Llewellyn Griffith, M.A.,
G. Ph.D., F.S.A.
Reader in Egyptology, Oxford
University. Editor of the Luxor;
Archaeological Survey and
Archaeological Reports of the Egypt Manetho.
Exploration Fund. Fellow of
Imperial German Archaeological
Institute.

F. Po. Sir Frederick Pollock, Bart., LL.D.,
D.C.L. Maine, Sir Henry.
See the article: Pollock (family).

F. R. Frank R. Cana.
C. Author of South Africa from the Mandingo.
Great Trek to the Union.

F. W. Frederick William Rudler, I.S.O.,
R.* F.G.S.
Curator and Librarian at the Magnetite;
Museum of Practical Geology, Malachite.
London, 1879-1902. President of the
Geologists’ Association, 1887-1889.

G. A. George Abraham Grierson, C.I.E.,
Gr. Ph.D., D.Litt.
(Dublin). Indian Civil Service,
1873-1903. In charge of Linguistic
Survey of India, 1898-1902. Gold
Marathi.
Medallist, Royal Asiatic Society,
1909. Vice-President of the Royal
Asiatic Society. Formerly Fellow of
Calcutta University. Author of The
Languages of India; &c.

G. Br. Rev. George Bryce, M.A., D.D., LL.D.,
F.R.S.
(Canada). President of the Royal
Society of Canada. Head of Faculty
of Science and Lecturer in Biology Manitoba (in part).
and Geology in Manitoba
University, 1891-1904. Author of
Manitoba; A Short History of the
Canadian People; &c.

G. B. George Barnett Smith.
S. Author of William I. and the
Macmahon.
German Empire; Life of Queen
Victoria; &c.

G. C. George Collins Levey, C.M.G. McCulloch, Sir
L. Member of Board of Advice to James.
Agent-General of Victoria. Formerly
Editor and Proprietor of the

Melbourne Herald. Secretary to
Commissioners for Victoria at the
Exhibitions in London, Paris,
Vienna, Philadelphia and
Melbourne.

G. G.* George Gladden.
Associate Editor of Current
Literature, 1904-1905. Editor of
Biography, New International Martha’s Vineyard.
Encyclopaedia, 1901-1904, 1906-
1907, and New International Year
Book, 1907-1908; &c.

G. G. George Gregory Smith, M.A.
S. Professor of English Literature,
Queen’s University of Belfast.
Lyndsay, Sir David.
Author of The Days of James IV.;
The Transition Period; Specimens of
Middle Scots; &c.

G. H. George Herbert Carpenter, B.Sc.
C. Professor of Zoology in the Royal
May-Fly (in part).
College of Science, Dublin. Author
of Insects: their Structure and Life.

G. R. George Robert Parkin, LL.D., D.C.L.
Macdonald, Sir John
P. See the biographical article: Parkin,
George Robert. Alexander.

G. Sa. George Saintsbury, LL.D., D.C.L. Maistre, Joseph de;
See the biographical article: Malherbe, Franois
Saintsbury, George E. B.
de;
Marguerite de
Valois;
Marivaux, Pierre;

Marot, Clement.

G. W. Rev. Griffithes Wheeler Thatcher, Luqmān;
T. M.A., B.D. Mahommedan
Warden of Camden College, Sydney,
N.S.W. Formerly Tutor in Hebrew Religion;
and Old Testament History at Mandaeans (in part);
Mansfield College, Oxford. Maqqarī;
Maqrīzī;
Mas’udi.

H. B. Horace Bolingbroke Woodward, F.R.S.,
Wo. F.G.S.
Formerly Assistant Director,
Geological Survey of England and
Lyell, Sir Charles.
Wales. Wollaston Medallist,
Geological Society. Author of The
History of the Geological Society of
London; &c.

H. Cl. Sir Hugh Charles Clifford, K.C.M.G.
Colonial Secretary, Ceylon. Fellow
of the Royal Colonial Institute. Malacca;
Formerly Resident, Pahang. Malay Peninsula;
Colonial Secretary, Trinidad and Malays;
Tobago, 1903-1907. Author of Malay States:
Studies in Brown Humanity; Further
Federated.
India; &c. Joint-author of A
Dictionary of the Malay Language.

H. C. Rev. Horace Carter Hovey, A.M., D.D. Luray Cavern;
H. Fellow of the American Association Mammoth Cave.
for the Advancement of Science,
Geological Society of America,
National Geographic Society and
Société de Spéléologie (France).
Author of Celebrated American

Caverns; Handbook of Mammoth
Cave of Kentucky; &c.

H. De. Rev. Hippolyte Delehaye S.J. S.J. Lucia, St;
Bollandist. Joint-editor of the Acta Marcellinus, St;
Sanctorum.
Margaret, St;
Martyrology.

H. E. Horace Elisha Scudder
S.* (d. 1902). Formerly Editor of the
Lowell, James
Atlantic Monthly. Author of Life of
James Russell Lowell; History of the Russell.
United States; &c.

H. Fr. Henri Frantz.
Art Critic, Gazette des Beaux-Arts Manet.
(Paris).

H. Le. Herbert Martin James Loewe, M.A.
Queen’s College, Cambridge.
Curator of Oriental Literature,
University Library, Cambridge.
Maimonides.
Formerly Chief English Master at
the Schools of the Alliance at Cairo
and Abyassiyyeh, Egypt. Author of
Kitab el Ansab of Samani; &c.

H. Lb. Horace Lamb, M.A., LL.D., D.Sc, F.R.S. Mechanics:
Professor of Mathematics, Theoretical.
University of Manchester. Formerly
Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Trinity
College, Cambridge. Member of
Council of Royal Society, 1894-
1896. Royal Medallist, 1902.
President of London Mathematical

Society, 1902-1904. Author of
Hydrodynamics; &c.

H. L. Harriet L. Hennessy, M.D. (Brux.),
Malaria (in part).
H. L.R.C.S.I., L.R.C.P.I.

H. M. Henry Morse Stephens, M.A., Litt.D.
S. Balliol College, Oxford. Professor Maintenon, Madame
of History in the University of de;
California. Author of History of the Mazarin.
French Revolution; &c.

H. S.* Sir Herbert Stephen, Bart., M.A.,
LL.M.
Trinity College, Cambridge. Lytton, 1st Earl of.
Barrister-at-Law. Clerk of Assize for
the Northern Circuit.

H. St. Henry Sturt, M.A.
Author of Idola Theatri; The Idea of
Lotze (in part).
a Free Church; Personal Idealism;
&c.

H. W. Henry William Carless Davis, M.A. Mandeville, Geoffrey
C. D. Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, de;
Oxford. Fellow of All Souls’
Marsh, Adam;
College, Oxford, 1895-1902. Author
of England under the Normans and Matilda, Queen;
Angevins; Charlemagne. Matthew of Paris.

H. W. Rev. Henry Wheeler Robinson, M.A.
R.* Professor of Church History in
Rawdon College, Leeds. Senior
Kennicott Scholar, Oxford, 1901. Malachi (in part).
Author of Hebrew Psychology in
Relation to Pauline Anthropology
(in Mansfield College Essays); &c.

H. Y. Sir Henry Yule, K.C.S.I., C.B. Mandeville, Sir John
See the biographical article: Yule, (in part);
Sir Henry.
Marignolli (in part).

I. A. Israel Abrahams, M.A. Luria;
Reader in Talmudic and Rabbinic Luzzatto, Moses
Literature in the University of
Hayim;
Cambridge. Formerly President,
Jewish Historical Society of Luzzatto, Samuel
England. Author of A Short History David;
of Jewish Literature; Jewish Life in Mapu;
the Middle Ages; Judaism; &c. Marano.

J. A. Sir Joseph Archer Crowe, K.C.M.G.
C. See the biographical article: Crowe, Mabuse.
Sir J. A.

J. A. S. John Addington Symonds.
Machiavelli;
See the biographical article:
Symonds, J. A. Manutius.

J. A. John Augustus Voelcker, M.A., Ph.D.,
V.* F.I.C., F.L.S.
Consulting Chemist to the Royal
Manures.
Agricultural Society of England, &c.
Author of The Woburn Experiments;
&c.

J. Bt. James Bartlett.
Lecturer on Construction,
Architecture, Sanitation, Quantities,
&c., at King’s College, London. Masonry.
Member of Society of Architects.
Member of Institute of Junior
Engineers.

J. C. Sir John Charles Ready Colomb,
R. C. K.C.M.G.
Marines.
See the biographical article:
Colomb, P. H.

J. D. James David Bourchier, M.A., F.R.G.S.
B. King’s College. Cambridge.
Correspondent of The Times in
South-Eastern Europe. Commander
Macedonia.
of the Orders of Prince Danilo of
Montenegro and of the Saviour of
Greece, and Officer of the Order of
St Alexander of Bulgaria.

J. F.- James Fitzmaurice-Kelly, Litt.D.,
K. F.R.Hist.S.
Gilmour Professor of Spanish
Language and Literature, Liverpool
University. Norman McColl
Lecturer, Cambridge University. Lull, Raimon;
Fellow of the British Academy. Maupassant.
Member of the Council of the
Hispanic Society of America. Knight
Commander of the Order of
Alphonso XII. Author of A History
of Spanish Literature.

J. Ga. James Gairdner, C.B., LL.D.
See the biographical article: Mary I., Queen.
Gairdner, James.

J. G. Sir James George Scott, K.C.I.E.
Sc. Superintendent and Political Officer,
Southern Shan States. Author of Mandalay.
Burma; The Upper Burma
Gazetteer.

J. Hn. Jŭstŭs Hashagen, Ph.D.
Privatdozent in Medieval and Louis I. and II. of
Modern History, University of
Bonn. Author of Das Rheinland Bavaria.
unter die franzosische Herrschaft.

J. H. F. John Henry Freese, M.A.
Formerly Fellow of St John’s Lycaon.
College, Cambridge.

J. H. John Horace Round, M.A., LL.D. Lord Great
R. (Edin.). Author of Feudal England; Chamberlain;
Studies in Peerage and Family
Mar, Earldom of;
History; Peerage and Pedigree.
Marquess.

J. Hl. John Holland Rose, M.A., Litt.D.
R. Christ’s College, Cambridge.
Lecturer on Modern History to the
Cambridge University Local
Lowe, Sir Hudson;
Lectures Syndicate. Author of Life
of Napoleon I.; Napoleonic Studies; Maret.
The Development of the European
Nations; The Life of Pitt; chapters in
the Cambridge Modern History.

J. I. Jules Isaac.
Professor of History at the Lycée of Louis XII. of France.
Lyons.

J. J. T. Sir Joseph John Thomson, D.Sc., LL.D., Magneto-Optics;
Ph.D., F.R.S. Matter.
Cavendish Professor of
Experimental Physics and Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge.
President of the British Association,
1909-1910. Author of A Treatise on

the Motion of Vortex Rings;
Application of Dynamics to Physics
and Chemistry; Recent Researches
in Electricity and Magnetism; &c.

J. L. Jessie Laidlay Weston.
Malory, Sir Thomas;
W. Author of Arthurian Romances
unrepresented in Malory. Map, Walter.

J. M. James Moncrieff Grierson, C.B.,
Gr. C.M.G., C.V.O.
Major-General, R.A. Commanding
1st Division Aldershot Command.
Director of Military Operations at Manœvres, Military.
Headquarters, 1904-1906. Served
through South African War, 1900-
1901. Author of Staff Duties in the
Field; &c.

J. M. John Malcolm Mitchell.
M. Sometime Scholar of Queen’s Mandeville, Bernard
College, Oxford. Lecturer in de;
Classics, East London College Marcus Aurelius
(University of London). Joint-editor Antoninus.
of Grote’s History of Greece.

J. P. P. John Percival Postgate, M.A., Litt.D.
Professor of Latin in the University
of Liverpool. Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge. Fellow of the
Lucan (in part).
British Academy. Editor of the
Classical Quarterly. Editor-in-chief
of the Corpus Poetarum Latinorum;
&c.

Jno. S. Sir John Scott, K.C.M.G., D.C.L. Martial Law.
(1841-1904). Deputy Judge

Advocate-General to the Forces,
1898-1904. Judicial Adviser to the
Khedive of Egypt, 1890-1898. Hon.
Fellow of Pembroke College,
Oxford.

J. Si.* Rev. James Sibree, F.R.G.S.
Principal Emeritus, United College
(L.M.S. and F.F.M.A.),
Antanànarivo, Madagascar. Membre Madagascar;
de l’Académie Malgache. Author of Mauritius.
Madagascar and its People;
Madagascar before the Conquest; A
Madagascar Bibliography; &c.

J. S. John Sutherland Black, M.A., LL.D. Mary: Mother of
Bl. Assistant-editor of the 9th edition of
Jesus (in part);
the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Joint-
editor of the Encyclopaedia Biblica. Mazzini.

J. S. James Sutherland Cotton, M.A.
Co. Editor of the Imperial Gazetteer of
India. Hon. Secretary of the
Egyptian Exploration Fund. Mahrattas (in part).
Formerly Fellow and Lecturer of
Queen’s College, Oxford. Author of
India; &c.

J. S. F. John Smith Flett, D.Sc, F.G.S.
Petrographer to the Geological
Survey. Formerly Lecturer on
Marble;
Petrology in Edinburgh University.
Neill Medallist of the Royal Society Marl.
of Edinburgh. Bigsby Medallist of
the Geological Society of London.

J. T. John Thomas Bealby.
Be. Joint-author of Stanford’s Europe.
Formerly Editor of the Scottish Maritime Province
Geographical Magazine. Translator (in part).
of Sven Hedin’s Through Asia,
Central Asia and Tibet; &c.

J. T. C. Joseph Thomas Cunningham, M.A.,
F.Z.S.
Lecturer on Zoology at the South-
Western Polytechnic, London.
Formerly Fellow of University Mackerel (in part).
College, Oxford. Assistant Professor
of Natural History in the University
of Edinburgh and Naturalist to the
Marine Biological Association.

J. T. John Theodore Merz, LL.D., Ph.D.,
M. D.C.L.
Chairman of the Newcastle-upon-
Lotze (in part).
Tyne Electric Supply Co., Ltd.
Author of History of European
Thought in the XIXth Century; &c.

J. T. James Thomson Shotwell, Ph.D. Louis VI., VII., IX.,
S.* Professor of History in Columbia X. and XI. of
University, New York City.
France.

J. V.* Jules Viard.
Archivist at the National Archives, Lore, Ambroise de;
Paris. Officer of Public Instruction, Louvet, Jean;
France. Author of La France sous Marcel, Étienne.
Philippe VI de Valois; &c.

J. V. B. James Vernon Bartlet, M.A., D.D. Mark, St (in part);
(St Andrews). Professor of Church Matthew, St;

History, Mansfield College, Oxford. Luke, St.
Author of The Apostolic Age; &c.

K. G. Kingsley Garland Jayne.
J. Sometime Scholar of Wadham
College, Oxford. Matthew Arnold Malay Archipelago.
Prizeman, 1903. Author of Vasco da
Gama and his Successors.

K. K. Konrad Kessler, Ph.D.
Formerly Professor of Semitic
Mandaeans (in part).
Languages at the University of
Greifswald.

K. L. Rev. Kirsopp Lake, M.A.
Lincoln College, Oxford. Professor
of Early Christian Literature and
New Testament Exegesis in the Mary, Mother of
University of Leiden. Author of The Jesus (in part).
Text of the New Testament; The
Historical Evidence for the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ; &c.

K. S. Kathleen Schlesinger. Lute (in part);
Editor of Portfolio of Musical
Lyre (in part);
Archaeology. Author of The
Instruments of the Orchestra. Mandoline.

L. J. S. Leonard James Spencer, M.A., F.G.S.
Assistant, Department of
Mineralogy, Natural History
Museum, South Kensington. Manganite;
Formerly Scholar of Sidney Sussex Marcasite.
College, Cambridge, and Harkness
Scholar. Editor of the Mineralogical
Magazine.

L. V.* Luigi Villari.
Italian Foreign Office (Emigration
Dept.). Formerly Newspaper Mazzini:
Correspondent in East of Europe. Bibliography.
Author of Italian Life in Town and
Country; &c.

L. W. L. W. Vernon-Harcourt
V-H. (d. 1909). Barrister-at-Law. Author
Lord High Steward.
of His Grace the Steward and the
Trial of Peers.

M. A. Mary A. Ward
W. (Mrs Humphry Ward). See the
Lyly.
biographical article: Ward, Mary
Augusta.

M. Br. Margaret Bryant. Louis VIII. and
XVII. of France.

M. Ja. Morris Jastrow, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor of Semitic Languages,
University of Pennsylvania. Author Marduk.
of Religion of the Babylonians and
Assyrians; &c.

M. N. Marcus Niebuhr Tod, M.A.
T. Fellow and Tutor of Oriel College, Lycurgus: Spartan
Oxford. University Lecturer in Lawgiver;
Epigraphy. Joint-author of Lysander.
Catalogue of the Sparta Museum.

M. O. Maximilian Otto Bismarck Caspari,
B. C. M.A. Mantineia (in part);
(Oxon.). Reader in Ancient History Manuel I.,
at London University. Lecturer in Comnenus;
Greek at Birmingham University, Marathon (in part).
1905-1908.

M. P. Mark Pattison, LL.D.
See the biographical article: Macaulay.
Pattison, Mark.

N. D. Newton Dennison Mereness, A.M.,
M. Ph.D.
Maryland.
Author of Maryland as a
Proprietary Province.

N. V. Joseph Marie Noel Valois.
Member of Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris.
Honorary Archivist at the Archives Marsilius of Padua;
Nationales. Formerly President of Martin I.-V.: Popes.
the Société de l’Histoire de France,
and of the Société de l’École des
Chartes.

N. W. Northcote Whitridge Thomas, M.A.
T. Government Anthropologist to
Southern Nigeria. Corresponding
Lycanthropy;
Member of the Société
d’Anthropologie de Paris. Author of Magic.
Thought Transference; Kinship and
Marriage in Australia; &c.

O. R. Osborne Reynolds, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S. Lubrication.
M.Inst.C.E.
Formerly Professor of Engineering,
Victoria University, Manchester.

Honorary Fellow of Queens’
College, Cambridge.

P. A. Philip A. Ashworth, M.A., Doc. Juris.
A. New College, Oxford. Barrister-at- Lübeck (in part).
Law.

P. A. Prince Peter Alexeivitch Kropotkin. Maritime Province
K. See the biographical article:
Kropotkin, Prince, P. A. (in part).

P. G. Percy Gardner, M.A., Litt.D., LL.D.
See the biographical article: Lysippus.
Gardner, Percy.

P. Gi. Peter Giles, M.A., LL.D., Litt.D.
Fellow and Classical Lecturer of
Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and
M.
University Reader in Comparative
Philology. Formerly Secretary of the
Cambridge Philological Society.

P. G. Peter Guthrie Tait, LL.D.
Maxwell, James
T. See the biographical article: Tait,
Peter Guthrie. Clerk.

P. Vi. Paul Vinogradoff, D.C.L., LL.D.
See the biographical article: Manor (in part).
Vinogradoff, Paul.

R. A.* Robert Anchel.
Louis XVI.;
Archivist to the Department de
l’Eure. Marat.

R. B. Ronald Brunlees McKerrow, M.A.
Marprelate
McK. Trinity College, Cambridge. Editor
of The Works of Thomas Nashe; &c. Controversy.

R. C. Sir Richard Claverhouse Jebb, D.C.L.,
J. LL.D.
Lysias (in part).
See the biographical article: Jebb,
Sir Richard Claverhouse.

R. G. Richard Garnett, LL.D., D.C.L.
Lucan (in part);
See the biographical article:
Garnett, Richard. Max Müller.

R. H. Rev. Robert Henry Charles, M.A.,
C. D.Litt.
Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint
at Oxford, 1905-1907. Fellow of the
British Academy. Professor of
Manasses, Prayer of.
Biblical Greek at Trinity College,
Dublin, 1898-1906. Hibbert Lecturer
at Oxford, 1898; Jowett Lecturer,
1898-1899. Author of Critical
History of a Future Life; &c.

R. J. Ronald John McNeill, M.A. Lundy, Robert;
M. Christ Church, Oxford. Barrister-at- Macdonnell, Sorley
law. Formerly Editor of the St
Boy;
James’s Gazette, London.
McNeile, Hugh;
Manchester, Earls
and Dukes of;
March, Earls of;
Margaret, Queen of
Scotland;
Masham, Abigail.

R. K. Sir Robert Kennaway Douglas. Manchuria.
D. Formerly Professor of Chinese,
King’s College, London. Keeper of
Oriental Printed Books and MSS. at

British Museum, 1892-1907.
Member of the Chinese Consular
Service, 1858-1865. Author of The
Language and Literature of China;
China; Europe and the Far East;
&c.

R. L.* Richard Lydekker, F.R.S., F.G.S., F.Z.S. Loris;
Member of the Staff of the Macaque;
Geological Survey of India, 1874-
1882. Author of Catalogues of Machaerodus;
Fossil Mammals, Reptiles and Birds Mammalia (in part);
in the British Museum; The Deer of Mammoth (in part);
all Lands; The Game Animals of Manati;
Africa; &c.
Mandrill;
Marmot;
Marsupialia;
Mastodon.

R. Robert M‘Lachlan, F.R.S.
M‘L. Editor of the Entomologists’ May-Fly (in part).
Monthly Magazine.

R. M. Richard Mountford Deeley,
D. M.Inst.CE., M.I.Mech.E., F.G.S.
Late Locomotive Superintendent, Lubricants.
Midland Railway. Joint-author of
Lubrication and Lubricants.

R. N. Robert Nisbet Bain Louis I. and II. of
B. (d. 1909). Assistant Librarian, Hungary;
British Museum, 1883-1909. Author
of Scandinavia, the Political History Malachowski;
of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, Margaret, Queen;
1513-1900; The First Romanovs, Martinuzzi;
1613 to 1725; Slavonic Europe, the

Political History of Poland and Matthias I.,
Russia from 1469 to 1796; &c. Hunyadi;
Matvyeev;
Mazepa-Koledinsky.

R. P. Reinhold Pauli.
See the biographical article: Pauli, Lübeck (in part).
Reinhold.

R. P. S. R. Phené Spiers, F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A.
Formerly Master of the Architectural
School, Royal Academy, London.
Past President of Architectural
Association. Associate and Fellow
of King’s College, London. Manor-House.
Corresponding Member of the
Institute of France. Editor of
Fergusson’s History of Architecture.
Author of Architecture: East and
West; &c.

R. Po. René Poupardin, D. ès L.
Secretary of the École des Chartes.
Honorary Librarian at the Lorraine;
Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Louis IV. and V. of
Author of Le Royaume de Provence France.
sous les Carolingiens; Recueil des
chartes de Saint-Germain; &c.

R. S. Robert Seymour Conway, M.A., D.Litt. Mamertini;
C. (Cantab.). Professor of Latin and Marrucini;
Indo-European Philology in the
University of Manchester. Formerly Marsi.
Professor of Latin in University
College, Cardiff; and Fellow of
Gonville and Caius College,

Cambridge. Author of The Italic
Dialects.

R. T. Sir Richard Temple.
See the biographical article: Temple, Mahrattas (in part).
Sir Richard.

R. We. Richard Webster, A.M.
(Princeton). Formerly Fellow in Mather, Increase;
Classics, Princeton University.
Editor of The Elegies of Mather, Richard.
Maximianus; &c.

S. A. Stanley Arthur Cook, M.A.
C. Lecturer in Hebrew and Syriac, and
formerly Fellow, Gonville and Caius
College, Cambridge. Editor for
Palestine Exploration Fund.
Examiner in Hebrew and Aramaic, Lot;
London University, 1904-1908. Manasseh.
Author of Glossary of Aramaic
Inscriptions; The Laws of Moses and
the Code of Hammurabi; Critical
Notes on Old Testament History;
Religion of Ancient Palestine; &c.

S. Bi. Shelford Bidwell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(1848-1909). Gonville and Caius
College, Cambridge. Formerly
Magnetism.
President of the Physical Society
and Member of Council of the Royal
Society.

S. C. Sidney Colvin, LL.D.
See the biographical article: Colvin, Marcantonio.
Sidney.

S. N. Simon Newcomb, LL.D., D.Sc.
See the biographical article: Mars: Planet.
Newcomb, Simon.

T. As. Thomas Ashby, M.A., D.Litt., F.S.A. Lucania;
Director of the British School of Lucca;
Archaeology at Rome.
Corresponding Member of the Lucena;
Imperial German Archaeological Lucretilis, Mons;
Institute. Formerly Scholar of Christ Lucus Feroniae;
Church, Oxford; Craven Fellow, Luna;
Oxford, 1897. Author of The
Magna Graecia;
Classical Topography of the Roman
Campagna; &c. Manduria;
Manfredonia;
Marches, The;
Marino;
Marzabotto.

T. Ba. Sir Thomas Barclay.
Member of the Institute of
International Law. Member of the
Supreme Council of the Congo Free
State. Officer of the Legion of Mare Clausum.
Honour. Author of Problems of
International Practice and
Diplomacy; &c. M.P. for Blackburn,
1910.

T. F. Theodore Freylinghuysen Collier,
C. Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of History, Marcellus.
Williams College, Williamstown,
Mass., U.S.A.

T. G. Thomas Gregor Brodie, M.D., F.R.S.
Br. Professor of Physiology in the
Lymph and Lymph
University of Toronto. Author of
Essentials of Experimental Formation.
Physiology.

T. H. Sir Thomas Hungerford Holdich,
H.* K.C.M.G., K.C.I.E., D.Sc.
Superintendent, Frontier Surveys,
India, 1892-1898. Gold Medallist,
Makran.
R.G.S., London, 1887. Author of
The Indian Borderland; The
Countries of the King’s Award;
India; Tibet.

T. M. Thomas Martin Lindsay, LL.D., D.D.
L. Principal of the United Free Church
College, Glasgow. Formerly
Luther, Martin;
Assistant to the Professor of Logic
and Metaphysics in the University of Lutherans.
Edinburgh. Author of History of the
Reformation; Life of Luther; &c.

T. R. Thomas Roscoe Rede Stebbing, M.A.,
R. S. F.R.S., F.L.S., F.Z.S.
Fellow of King’s College, London.
Hon. Fellow of Worcester College,
Malacostraca.
Oxford. Zoological Secretary of
Linnaean Society, 1903-1907.
Author of A History of Crustacea;
The Naturalist of Cumbrae; &c.

T. Se. Thomas Seccombe, M.A. Marlowe,
Balliol College, Oxford. Lecturer in Christopher (in
History, East London and Birkbeck
part);
Colleges, University of London.
Stanhope Prizeman, Oxford, 1887.

Assistant Editor of Dictionary of Marston, Philip
National Biography, 1891-1901. Bourke.
Author of The Age of Johnson; &c.

T. W. Thomas William Rhys Davids, M.A.,
R. D. Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Comparative Religion
in the University of Manchester.
Professor of Pali and Buddhist Lumbinī;
Literature, University College,
Mahāvamsa;
London, 1882-1904. President of the
Pali Text Society. Fellow of the Maitreÿa.
British Academy. Secretary and
Librarian of Royal Asiatic Society,
1885-1902. Author of Buddhism;
&c.

V. H. Rev. Vincent Henry Stanton, M.A.,
S. D.D.
Ely Professor of Divinity in the Mark, Gospel of St;
University of Cambridge. Canon of Matthew, Gospel of
Ely. Formerly Fellow, Dean, Tutor St;
and Lecturer of Trinity College, Luke, Gospel of St.
Cambridge. Author of The Jewish
and the Christian Messiahs; &c.

W. A. Rev. William Augustus Brevoort
B. C. Coolidge, M.A., F.R.G.S.
Fellow of Magdalen College, Lötschen Pass;
Oxford. Professor of English Lucerne: Canton,
History, St David’s College, Town, Lake of;
Lampeter, 1880-1881. Author of Lugano, Lake of;
Guide to Switzerland; The Alps in
Maggiore, Lago.
Nature and in History; &c. Editor of
the Alpine Journal, 1880-1889.

W. A. Walter Armstrong Graham.
G. His Siamese Majesty’s Resident Malay States: Non-
Commissioner for the Siamese Federated.
Malay State of Kelantan. Adviser to
his Siamese Majesty’s Minister for Malay States:
Lands and Agriculture. Author of Siamese.
Kelantan, a Handbook; &c.

W. A. Walter Alison Phillips, M.A.
P. Formerly Exhibitioner of Merton Louis Philippe;
College and Senior Scholar of St Mahmud II.;
John’s College, Oxford. Author of Mass: Church.
Modern Europe; &c.

W. D. William Draper Lewis, LL.B., Ph.D.
L. Dean of the Law School, University
of Pennsylvania. Lecturer on
Marshall, John.
Economics, Haverford College,
Pennsylvania, 1890-1896. Editor of
Great American Lawyers; &c.

W. E. William Edmund Armytage Axon, LL.D.
A. A. Formerly Deputy Chief Librarian of
the Manchester Free Libraries. On
Literary Staff of Manchester
Manchester.
Guardian, 1874-1905. Member of
the Gorsedd, with the bardic name
of Manceinion. Author of Annals of
Manchester; &c.

W. E. William Ernest Dalby, M.A., Mechanics: Applied
D. M.Inst.C.E., M.I.M.E. (in part).
Professor of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering at the City and Guilds
of London Institute Central
Technical College, South
Kensington. Formerly University

Demonstrator in the Engineering
Department, Cambridge. Author of
The Balancing of Engines; Valves
and Valve-Gear Mechanism; &c.

W. E. William Edward Garrett Fisher, M.A.
G. F. Author of The Transvaal and the Marbles.
Boers.

W. F.* Rev. William Fairweather, M.A., D.D.
Minister of Dunnikier United Free
Church, Kirkcaldy, N.B. Author of Maccabees;
Maccabees (Cambridge Bible for Maccabees, Books of.
Schools); The Background of the
Gospels; &c.

W. Ho. Wynnard Hooper, M.A.
Clare College, Cambridge. Financial Market.
Editor of The Times, London.

W. H. Sir William Henry Flower, F.R.S. Mammalia (in part);
F. See the biographical article: Flower, Mammoth (in part);
Sir W. H.
Mandrill (in part);
Marten.

W. J. William John Macquorn Rankine,
M. R. LL.D. Mechanics: Applied
See the biographical article: (in part).
Rankine, William John Macquorn.

W. L. William Lee Corbin, A.M.
C.* Associate Professor of English, Mather, Cotton.
Wells College, Aurora, New York.

W. L. Walter Lynwood Fleming, A.M., Ph.D. Lynch Law;
F. Professor of History in Louisiana
State University. Author of

Documentary History of McGillivray,
Reconstruction; &c. Alexander.

W. L. William Lawson Grant, M.A.
G. Professor at Queen’s University,
Kingston, Canada. Formerly Beit Mackenzie, William
Lecturer in Colonial History at
Lyon;
Oxford University. Editor of Acts of
the Privy Council, (“Colonial” Manitoba (in part).
series); Canadian Constitutional
Development (in collaboration).

W. M. William Michael Rossetti. Luini;
R. See the biographical article: Mantegna;
Rossetti, Dante G.
Martini;
Masaccio;
Masolino da
Panicale.

W. M. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, LL.D.,
Ra. D.C.L.
Lycaonia.
See the biographical article: Ramsay,
Sir William Mitchell.

W. P. William Prideaux Courtney, D.C.L.
Marlborough, 1st
C. See the article: Courtney, L. H.,
Baron. Duke of.

W. R. William Robertson Smith, LL.D.
Malachi (in part);
S. See the biographical article: Smith,
William Robertson. Mecca.

W. William Watson, D.Sc, F.R.S. Magnetograph;
Wn. Assistant Professor of Physics, Magnetometer.
Royal College of Science, London.

Vice-President of the Physical
Society.

W. W. William Warde Fowler, M.A.
F.* Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford.
Sub-Rector, 1881-1904. Gifford
Lecturer, Edinburgh University, Mars: Mythology;
1908. Author of The City-State of Mauretania.
the Greeks and Romans; The Roman
Festivals of the Republican Period;
&c.

W. Y. William Young Sellar, LL.D. Martial;
S. See the biographical article: Sellar, Lucilius (in part);
William Young.
Lucretius.

1 A complete list, showing all individual contributors, appears in the final volume.

PRINCIPAL UNSIGNED ARTICLES
Lord Mafia. March.
Chamberlain. Magnesium. Marengo.
Lotteries. Magnolia. Marionettes.
Louisiana. Maine, U.S.A. Marriage.
Lourdes. Maize. Marseilles.
Loyalists. Malplaquet. Marshal.
Malta. Marston Moor.

Luchu Mandamus. Maryland.
Archipelago. Manganese. Massachusetts.
Lützen. Manila. Match.
Lyons. Manipur. Mayo.
Macabre. Manna. Mayor.
McKinley, Maori. Measles.
William. Maple. Mecklenburg.
Madeira.
Madison, James.
Madras.
Madrid.

LORD CHAMBERLAIN, in England, an important officer of
the king’s household, to be distinguished from the lord great chamberlain
(q.v.). He is the second dignitary of the court, and is always a member of the
government of the day (before 1782 the office carried cabinet rank), a peer
and a privy councillor. He carries a white staff, and wears a golden or
jewelled key, typical of the key of the palace, which is supposed to be in his
charge, as the ensigns of his office. He is responsible for the necessary
arrangements connected with state ceremonies, such as coronations and
royal marriages, christenings and funerals; he examines the claims of those
who desire to be presented at court; all invitations are sent out in his name
by command of the sovereign, and at drawing-rooms arid levees he stands
next to the sovereign and announces the persons who are approaching the

throne. It is also part of his duty to conduct the sovereign to and from his
carriage.1 The bedchamber, privy chamber and presence chamber, the
wardrobe, the housekeeper’s room, the guardroom and the chapels royal are
in the lord chamberlain’s department. He is regarded as chief officer of the
royal household, and he has charge of a large number of appointments, such
as those of the royal physicians, tradesmen and private attendants of the
sovereign. All theatres in the cities of London and Westminster (except
patent theatres), in certain of the London boroughs and in the towns of
Windsor and Brighton, are licensed by him and he is also licenser of plays
(see Theatre: Law; and Revels, Master of the). His salary is £2000 a year.

The vice-chamberlain of the household is the lord chamberlain’s
assistant and deputy. He also is one of the ministry, a white-staff officer
and the bearer of a key; and he is generally a peer or the son of a peer
as well as a privy councillor. He receives £700 a year. Next to the vice-
chamberlain comes the groom of the stole, an office only in use during
the reign of a king. He has the charge of the vestment called the stole
worn by the sovereign on state occasions. In the lord chamberlain’s
department also are the master, assistant master, marshal of the
ceremonies and deputy-marshal of the ceremonies, officers whose
special function it is to enforce the observance of the etiquette of the
court. The reception of foreign potentates and ambassadors is under
their particular care, and they assist in the ordering of all
entertainments and festivities at the palace.2 The gentleman usher of
the black rod—the black rod which he carries being the ensign of his
office—is the principal usher of the court and kingdom. He is one of
the original functionaries of the order of the Garter, and is in constant
attendance on the House of Lords, from whom, either personally or by
his deputy, the yeoman usher of the black rod, it is part of his duty to
carry messages and summonses to the House of Commons. There are
six lords and six grooms “in waiting” who attend on the sovereign

throughout the year and whose terms of attendance are of a fortnight’s
or three weeks’ duration at a time. Usually “extra” lords and grooms in
waiting are nominated by the sovereign, who, however, are unpaid and
have no regular duties. Among the serjeants-at-arms there are two to
whom special duties are assigned: the one attending the speaker in the
House of Commons, and the other attending the lord chancellor in the
House of Lords, carrying their maces and executing their orders.3 The
comptroller and examiner of accounts, the paymaster of the household,
the licenser of plays, the dean and subdean of the chapels royal, the
clerk and deputy clerks of the closet, the groom of the robes, the pages
of the backstairs, of the chamber and of the presence, the poet laureate,
the royal physicians and surgeons, chaplains, painters and sculptors,
librarians and musicians, &c., are all under the superintendence of the
lord chamberlain of the household.4

The queen consort’s household is also in the department of the lord
chamberlain of the household. It comprises a lord chamberlain, a vice-
chamberlain and treasurer, equerry and the various ladies of the royal
household, a groom and a clerk of the robes. The ladies of the
household are the mistress of the robes, the ladies of the bedchamber,
the bedchamber women and the maids of honour. The mistress of the
robes in some measure occupies the position of the groom of the stole.5
She is the only lady of the court who comes into office and goes out
with the administration. She is always a duchess, and attends the queen
consort at all state ceremonies and entertainments, but is never in
permanent residence at the palace.6 The ladies of the bedchamber share
the personal attendance on the queen consort throughout the year. Of
these there are eight, always peeresses, and each is in waiting for a
fortnight or three weeks at a time. But the women of the bedchamber,
of whom there are also eight, appear only at court ceremonies and
entertainments according to a roster annually issued under the authority

of the lord chamberlain of the queen consort. They are usually the
daughters of peers or the wives of the sons of peers, and formerly, like
the mistress of the robes and the ladies of the bedchamber, habitually
assisted the queen at her daily toilette. But this has long ceased to be
done by any of them. The eight maids of honour have the same terms
of waiting as the ladies of the bedchamber. They are commonly if not
always the daughters or granddaughters of peers, and when they have
no superior title and precedence by birth are called “honourable” and
placed next after the daughters of barons.

1 The lord chamberlain of the household at one time discharged some important
political functions, which are described by Sir Harris Nicolas (Proceedings of the Privy
Council, vol. vi., Preface, p. xxiii).

2 The office of master of the ceremonies was created by James I. The master of the
ceremonies wears a medal attached to a gold chain round his neck, on one side being an
emblem of peace with the motto “Beati pacifici,” and on the other an emblem of war with
the motto “Dieu et mon droit” (see Finetti Philoxensis, by Sir John Finett, master of the
ceremonies to James I. and Charles I., 1656; and D’Israeli’s Curiosities of Literature, 10th
ed., p. 242 seq.).

3 See May, Parliamentary Practice, pp. 236, 244.

4 The offices of master of the great wardrobe and master of the jewel house in the lord
chamberlain’s department were abolished in 1782.

5 In the reign of Queen Anne, Sarah duchess of Marlborough from 1704, and Elizabeth
duchess of Somerset from 1710, held the combined offices of mistress of the robes and
groom of the stole.

6 Since the great “bedchamber question” of 1839 the settled practice has been for all the
ladies of the court except the mistress of the robes to receive and continue in their
appointments independently of the political connexions of their husbands, fathers and
brothers (see Gladstone’s Gleanings of Past Years, i. 40; and Torrens’s Memoirs of Lord
Melbourne, ii. 304).

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in England, the presiding judge of
the king’s bench division of the High Court of Justice, and in the absence of
the lord chancellor, president of the High Court. He traces his descent from
the justiciar of the Norman kings. This officer appears first as the lieutenant
or deputy of the king, exercising all the functions of the regal office in the
absence of the sovereign. “In this capacity William Fitz-Osbern, the steward
of Normandy, and Odo of Bayeux, acted during the Conqueror’s visit to the
continent in 1067; they were left, according to William of Poitiers, the
former to govern the north of England, the latter to hold rule in Kent, vice
sua; Florence of Worcester describes them as “custodes Angliae,” and
Ordericus Vitalis gives to their office the name of “praefectura.” It would
seem most probable that William Fitz-Osbern at least was left in his
character of steward, and that the Norman seneschalship was thus the origin
of the English justiciarship” (Stubbs’s Constitutional History, i. 346). The
same authority observes that William of Warenne and Richard Clare
(Bienfaite), who were left in charge of England in 1074, are named by a
writer in the next generation “praecipui Angliae justitiarii”; but he considers
the name to have not yet been definitely attached to any particular office,
and that there is no evidence to show that officers appointed to this trust
exercised any functions at all when the king was at home, or in his absence
exercised supreme judicial authority to the exclusion of other high officers
of the court. The office became permanent in the reign of William Rufus,
and in the hands of Ranulf Flambard it became coextensive with the

supreme powers of government. But it was not till the reign of Henry II.
that the chief officer of the crown acquired the exclusive right to the title of
capitalis or totius Angliae justitiarius. Stubbs considers that the English
form of the office is to be accounted for by the king’s desire to prevent the
administration falling into the hands of an hereditary noble. The early
justiciars were clerics, in whom the possession of power could not become
hereditary. The justiciar continued to be the chief officer of state, next to the
king, until the fall of Hubert de Burgh (in the reign of King John), described
by Stubbs as the last of the great justiciars. Henceforward, according to
Stubbs, the office may be said to have survived only in the judicial
functions, which were merely part of the official character of the chief
justiciar. He was at the head of the curia regis, which was separating itself
into the three historical courts of common law about the time when the
justiciarship was falling from the supreme place. The chancellor took the
place of the justiciar in council, the treasurer in the exchequer, while the
two offshoots from the curia regis, the common pleas and the exchequer,
received chiefs of their own. The king’s bench represented the original
stock of the curia regis, and its chief justice the great justiciar. The justiciar
may, therefore, be said to have become from a political a purely judicial
officer. A similar development awaited his successful rival the chancellor.
Before the Judicature Act the king’s bench and the common pleas were each
presided over by a lord chief justice, and the lord chief justice of the king’s
bench was nominal head of all the three courts, and held the title of lord
chief justice of England. The titles of lord chief justice of the common pleas
and lord chief baron were abolished by the Judicature Act 1873, and all the
common law divisions of the High Court united into the king’s bench
division, the president of which is the lord chief justice of England.

The lord chief justice is, next to the lord chancellor, the highest
judicial dignitary in the kingdom. He is an ex-officio judge of the court
of appeal. He holds office during good behaviour, and can only be

removed by the crown (by whom he is appointed) after a joint address
of both houses of parliament. He is now the only judicial functionary
privileged to wear the collar of SS. There has been much discussion as
to the origin and history of this collar;1 it was a badge or insignia
attached to certain offices entitling the holders to wear it only so long
as they held those offices. The collar of SS. was worn by the chiefs of
the three courts previous to their amalgamation in 1873, and that now
worn by the lord chief justice of England was provided by Sir A.
Cockburn in 1859 and entailed by him on all holders of the office. The
salary is £8000 a year.

In the United States the supreme court consists of a chief justice and
eight associate justices, any six of whom make a quorum. The salary of
the chief justice is $13,000 and that of the associates $12,500. The
chief justice takes rank next after the president, and he administers the
oath on the inauguration of a new president and vice-president. The
principal or presiding judge in most of the state judicatures also takes
the title of chief justice.

1 Notes and Queries, series 1, vol. ii.; series 4, vols. ii. ix. x.; series 6, vols. ii. iii.;
Planché, Dictionary of Costume, p. 126; Foss, Lives of the Judges, vol. vii.; Dugdale, Orig.
Jud. fol. 102.

LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN, in England, a
functionary who must be carefully distinguished from the lord chamberlain;

he is one of the great officers of state, whose office dates from Norman
times; and the only one who still holds it under a creation of that period. As
his name implies, he was specially connected by his duties with the king’s
chamber (camera curie); but this phrase was also used to denote the king’s
privy purse, and the chamberlain may be considered as originally the
financial officer of the household. But as he was always a great baron,
deputies performed his financial work, and his functions became, as they
are now, mainly ceremonial, though the emblem of his office is still a key.
The office had been held by Robert Malet, son of a leading companion of
the Conqueror, but he was forfeited by Henry I., who, in 1133, gave the
great chamberlainship to Aubrey de Vere and his heirs. Aubrey’s son was
created earl of Oxford, and the earls held the office, with some intermission,
till 1526, when the then earl left female heirs. His heir-male succeeded to
the earldom, but the crown, as is now established, denied his right to the
office, which was thenceforth held under grants for life till Queen Mary and
Elizabeth admitted in error the right of the earls on the strength of their own
allegation. So matters continued till 1626, when an earl died and again left
an heir-male and an heir-female. After an historic contest the office was
adjudged to the former, Lord Willoughby d’Eresby. No further question
arose till 1779, when his heirs were two sisters. In 1781 the House of Lords
decided that it belonged to them jointly, and that they could appoint a
deputy, which they did. Under a family arrangement the heirs of the two
sisters respectively appointed deputies in alternate reigns till the death of
Queen Victoria, when Lord Ancaster, the heir of the elder, who was then in
possession, claimed that he, as such, had sole right to the office. Lord
Cholmondeley and Lord Carrington as coheirs of the younger sister,
opposed his claim, and the crown also claimed for itself on the ground of
the action taken by the king in 1526. After a long and historic contest, the
House of Lords (1902) declined to re-open the question, and merely re-

affirmed the decision of 1781, and the office, therefore, is now vested
jointly in the three peers named and their heirs.

The lord great chamberlain has charge of the palace of Westminster,
especially of the House of Lords, in which he has an office; and when the
sovereign opens parliament in person he is responsible for the
arrangements. At the opening or closing of the session of parliament by the
sovereign in person he disposes of the sword of state to be carried by any
peer he may select, and walks himself in the procession on the right of the
sword of state, a little before it and next to the sovereign. He issues the
tickets of admission on the same occasions. He assists at the introduction of
all peers into the House of Lords on their creation, and at the homage of all
bishops after their consecration. At coronations he emerges into special
importance; he still asserts before the court of claims his archaic right to
bring the king his “shirt, stockings and drawers” and to dress him on
coronation day and to receive his ancient fees, which include the king’s bed
and “night robe.” He also claims in error to serve the king with water before
and after the banquet, which was the function of the “ewry,” a distinct
office held by the earls of Oxford. At the actual coronation ceremony he
takes an active part in investing the king with the royal insignia.

See J. H. Round, “The Lord Great Chamberlain” (Monthly Review,
June 1902) and “Notes on the Lord Great Chamberlain Case”
(Ancestor, No. IV.).
(J. H. R.)

LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR, one of the great officers of
state of the United Kingdom, and in England the highest judicial
functionary. The history of the office and of the growth of the importance of
the lord chancellor will be found under Chancellor. The lord chancellor is
in official rank the highest civil subject in the land outside the royal family,
and takes precedence immediately after the archbishop of Canterbury. His
functions have sometimes been exercised by a lord keeper of the great seal
(see Lord Keeper), the only real difference between the two offices being in
the appointment of the keeper by mere delivery of the seal, while a lord
chancellor receives letters patent along with it. He is by office a privy
councillor, and it has long been the practice to make him a peer and also a
cabinet minister. He is by prescription Speaker or prolocutor of the House
of Lords, and as such he sits upon the woolsack, which is not strictly within
the House. Unlike the Speaker of the House of Commons, the lord
chancellor takes part in debates, speaking from his place in the House. He
votes from the woolsack instead of going into the division lobby. The only
function which he discharges as Speaker practically is putting the question;
if two debaters rise together, he has no power to call upon one, nor can he
rule upon points of order. Those taking part in debates address, not the lord
chancellor, but the whole House, as “My Lords.” The lord chancellor
always belongs to a political party and is affected by its fluctuations. This
has often been denounced as destructive of the independence and calm
deliberativeness essential to the purity and efficiency of the bench. In
defence, however, of the ministerial connexion of the chancellor, it has been
said that, while the other judges should be permanent, the head of the law
should stand or fall with the ministry, as the best means of securing his
effective responsibility to parliament for the proper use of his extensive
powers. The transference of the judicial business of the chancery court to
the High Court of Justice removed many of the objections to the fluctuating
character of the office. As a great officer of state, the lord chancellor acts

for both England and Scotland, and in some respects for the United
Kingdom, including Ireland (where, however, an Irish lord chancellor is at
the head of the legal system). By Article XXIV. of the Act of Union (1705)
one great seal was appointed to be kept for all public acts, and in this
department the lord chancellor’s authority extends to the whole of Britain,
and thus the commissions of the peace for Scotland as well as England issue
from him.1 As an administrative officer, as a judge and as head of the law,
he acts merely for England. His English ministerial functions are thus
briefly described by Blackstone: “He became keeper of the king’s
conscience, visitor, in right of the king, of all hospitals and colleges of the
king’s foundation, and patron of all the king’s livings under the value of
twenty marks per annum in the king’s books. He is the general guardian of
all infants, idiots and lunatics, and has the general superintendence of all
charitable uses in the kingdom.” But these duties and jurisdiction by
modern statutes have been distributed for the most part among other offices
or committed to the judges of the High Court (see Charity and Charities;
Infant; Insanity). Under the Judicature Act 1873 the lord chancellor is a
member of the court of appeal, and, when he sits, its president, and he is
also a judge of the High Court of Justice. He is named as president of the
chancery division of the latter court. His judicial patronage is very
extensive, and he is by usage the adviser of the crown in the appointment of
judges2 of the High Court. He presides over the hearing of appeals in the
House of Lords. His proper title is “Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain
and Ireland.” His salary is £10,000 per annum, and he is entitled to a
pension of £5000 per annum.

Authorities.—Observations concerning the Office of Lord
Chancellor (1651), attributed to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere;
Blackstone’s Commentaries; Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors; and
D. M. Kerly, Historical Sketch of the Equitable Jurisdiction of the
Court of Chancery (1890).

1 The great seal, which exists in duplicate for Irish use, is the great seal of the United
Kingdom.

2 Except the lord chief justice, who is appointed on the nomination of the prime
minister.

LORD HIGH CONSTABLE, in England, the seventh of the
great officers of state. His office is now called out of abeyance for
coronations alone. The constable was originally the commander of the royal
armies and the master of the horse. He was also, in conjunction with the
earl marshal, president of the court of chivalry or court of honour. In feudal
times martial law was administered in the court of the lord high constable.
The constableship was granted as a grand serjeanty with the earldom of
Hereford by the empress Maud to Milo of Gloucester, and was carried by
his heiress to the Bohuns, earls of Hereford and Essex. Through a coheiress
of the Bohuns it descended to the Staffords, dukes of Buckingham; and on
the attainder of Edward Stafford, third duke of Buckingham, in the reign of
Henry VIII. it became merged in the crown. The Lacys and Verduns were
hereditary constables of Ireland from the 12th to the 14th century, and the

Hays, earls of Erroll, have been hereditary constables of Scotland from
early in the 14th century.

LORD HIGH STEWARD. The Lord High Steward of
England, who must not be confused with the Lord Steward, ranks as the
first of the great officers of state. Appointments to this office are now made
only for special occasions, such as the coronation of a sovereign or the trial
of a peer by his peers. The history of the office is noteworthy. The
household of the Norman and Angevin kings of England included certain
persons of secondary rank, styled dapifers, seneschals or stewards (the
prototypes of the lord steward), who were entrusted with domestic and state
duties; the former duties were those of purveyors and sewers to the king,
the latter were undefined. At coronations, however, and great festivals it
became the custom in England and elsewhere to appoint magnates of the
first rank to discharge for the occasion the domestic functions of the
ordinary officials. In accordance with this custom Henry II. appointed both
Robert II., earl of Leicester, and Hugh Bigod, earl of Norfolk, to be his
honorary hereditary stewards; and at the Christmas festival of 1186 the
successors in title of these two earls, with William, earl of Arundel, who
held the similar honorary office of hereditary butler, are described as
serving the king at the royal banqueting table. Subsequently the earls of
Leicester bought out the rights of the earls of Norfolk for ten knights’ fees.

The last of these earls of Leicester to inherit the hereditary stewardship
was Simon V. de Montfort; how he served as steward at the coronation of
Eleanor, queen of Henry III., is described in the Exchequer Red Book. The
office of steward in France, then recently suppressed, had for some time
been the highest office of state in that kingdom, and Simon de Montfort
appears to have considered that his hereditary stewardship entitled him to
high official position in England; and after his victory at Lewes he
repeatedly figures as steward of England in official documents under the
great seal. After Simon’s death at Evesham his forfeited estates were
conferred on his son Edmund of Lancaster, who also obtained a grant of the
stewardship, but only for life. Edmund was succeeded by Thomas, earl of
Lancaster, who received a fresh grant of the stewardship to himself and the
heirs of his body from Edward II.; and this earl it was who, during the weak
administration of the last-mentioned king, first put forward in a celebrated
tract the claim of the steward to be the second personage in the realm and
supreme judge in parliament, a claim which finds some slight recognition in
the preamble to the statute passed against the Despencers in the first year of
Edward III.

Earl Thomas was executed for treason, and though his attainder was
reversed he left no issue, and was succeeded in the earldom by his brother
Henry. The subsequent earls and dukes of Lancaster were all recognized as
stewards of England, the office apparently being treated as annexed to the
earldom, or honor, of Leicester. John of Gaunt, indeed, at a time when it
was possible that he would never obtain the Leicester moiety of the
Lancastrian estates, seems to have made an ingenious but quite unfounded
claim to the office as annexed to the honor of Hinckley. Strictly speaking,
none of the Lancasters after Thomas had any clear title either by grant or
otherwise; such title as they had merged in the crown when Henry IV.
usurped the throne. Meanwhile the stewardship had increased in
importance. On the accession of Edward III., Henry, earl of Lancaster, as

president of the council, had superintended the coronation of the infant
king; John of Gaunt did the same for the infant Richard II.; and, as part of
the duties involved, sat in the White Hall of Westminster to hear and
determine the claims to perform coronation services. The claims were made
by petition, and included amongst others: the claim of Thomas of
Woodstock to act as constable, the rival claims of John Dymock and
Baldwin de Frevile to act as champion, and the claim of the barons of the
Cinque Ports to carry a canopy over the king. Minutes of these proceedings,
in which the duke is stated to have sat “as steward of England,” were
enrolled by his order. This is the origin of what is now called the Court of
Claims. The precedent of Richard II. has been followed on all subsequent
occasions, except that in modern times it has been the practice to appoint
commissioners instead of a steward to superintend this court. In 1397 John
of Gaunt created a notable precedent in support of the steward’s claim to be
supreme judge in parliament by presiding at the trial of the earl of Arundel
and others.

When Henry IV. came to the throne he appointed his young son Thomas,
afterwards duke of Clarence, to the office of steward. Clarence held the
office until his death. He himself never acted as judge in parliament; but in
1415 he was appointed to preside at the judgment of peers delivered in
Southampton against Richard, earl of Cambridge, and Lord Scrope of
Masham, who had been previously tried by commissioners of oyer and
terminer. No permanent steward was ever again created; but a steward was
always appointed for coronations to perform the various ceremonial
services associated with the office, and, until the Court of Claims was
entrusted to commissioners, to preside over that court. Also, in the 15th
century, it gradually became the custom to appoint a steward pro hac vice to
preside at the trial, or at the proceedings upon the attainder of a peer in
parliament; and later, to preside over a court, called the court of the lord
high steward, for the trial of peers when parliament was not sitting. To

assist in establishing the latter court a precedent of 1400 appears to have
been deliberately forged. This precedent is reported in the printed Year-
Book of 1400, first published in 1553; it describes the trial of “the earl of
H” for participation in the rebellion of that year, and gives details of
procedure. John Holand, earl of Huntingdon, is undoubtedly the earl
indicated, but the evidence is conclusive that he was murdered in Essex
without any trial. The court of the lord high steward seems to have been
first definitely instituted in 1499 for the trial of Edward Plantagenet, earl of
Warwick; only two years earlier Lord Audley had been condemned by the
court of chivalry, a very different and unpopular tribunal. The Warwick trial
was most carefully schemed: the procedure, fundamentally dissimilar to
that adopted in 1415, follows exactly the forged precedent; but the
constitution of the court was plainly derived from the Southampton case.
The record of the trial was consigned to a new repository (commonly but
wrongly called the Baga de Secretis), which thenceforth became the regular
place of custody for important state trials. Latterly, and possibly from its
inception, this repository consisted of a closet with three locks, of which the
keys were entrusted, one to the chief justice of England, another to the
attorney-general and the third to the master of the crown office, or coroner.
Notwithstanding the irregular origin of the steward’s court, for which Henry
VII. must be held responsible, the validity of its jurisdiction cannot be
questioned. The Warwick proceedings were confirmed by act of parliament,
and ever since this court has been fully recognized as part of the English
constitution.

For about a century and a half prior to the reign of James I. the criminal
jurisdiction of parliament remained in abeyance, and bills of attainder were
the vogue. The practice of appointing a steward on these occasions to
execute judgment upon a peer was kept up till 1477, when George, duke of
Clarence, was attainted, and then dropped. Under the Stuarts the criminal
jurisdiction of parliament was again resorted to, and when the proceedings

against a peer were founded on indictment the appointment of a steward
followed as a matter of settled practice. The proper procedure in cases of
impeachment had, on the contrary, never been defined. On the impeachment
of Strafford the lords themselves appointed Arundel to be high steward. In
Danby’s case a commission under the great seal issued in the common form
adopted for the court of the steward; this was recalled, and the rule agreed
to by a joint committee of both houses that a steward for trials of peers upon
impeachments was unnecessary. But, as such an appointment was obviously
convenient, the lords petitioned for a steward; and a fresh commission was
accordingly issued in an amended form, which recited the petition, and
omitted words implying that the appointment was necessary. This precedent
has been treated as settling the practice of parliament with regard to
impeachments.

Of the proceedings against peers founded upon indictment very few trials
antecedent to the revolution took place in parliament. The preference given
to the steward’s court was largely due to the practice, founded upon the
Southampton case, of summoning only a few peers selected by the steward,
a practice which made it easy for the king to secure a conviction. This
arrangement has been partially abrogated by the Treason Act of William
III., which in cases of treason and misprision of treason requires that all
peers of parliament shall be summoned twenty days at least before every
such trial. The steward’s court also differed in certain other particulars from
the high court of parliament. For example, it was ruled by Lord Chancellor
Jeffreys, as steward at the trial of Lord Delamere, that, in trials of peers
which take place during the recess of parliament in the steward’s court, the
steward is the judge of the court, the court is held before him, his warrant
convenes the prisoner to the bar, his summons convenes the peers for the
trial, and he is to determine by his sole authority all questions of law that
arise in the course of the trial, but that he is to give no vote upon the issue
of guilty or not guilty; during a session of parliament, on the contrary, all

the peers are both triers and judges, and the steward is only as chairman of
the court and gives his vote together with the other lords. Lord Delamere
was tried in 1685 in the steward’s court; since then all trials of peers have
taken place before the lords in parliament. The most recent trial was that of
Earl Russell in 1901, when Lord Chancellor Halsbury was made lord high
steward. The steward is addressed as “his grace,” he has a rod of office, and
the commission appointing him is dissolved according to custom by
breaking this rod.

A court of claims sat and a steward was appointed for the coronation of
Edward VII.; and during the procession in Westminster Abbey the duke of
Marlborough, as steward, carried “St Edward’s crown” in front of the bearer
of the Bible (the bishop of London), who immediately preceded the king;
this function of the steward is of modern origin. The steward’s ancient and
particular services at coronations are practically obsolete; the full
ceremonies, procession from Westminster Hall and banquet in which he
figured prominently, were abandoned on the accession of William IV.

For the early history of the steward see L. W. Vernon-Harcourt, His
Grace the Steward and Trial of Peers (1907); for the later history of the
office see Sir E. Coke, Institutes (1797); Cobbett and Howell, State
Trials (1809, seq.); S. M. Phillipps, State Trials (1826); John Hatsell,
Precedents, vol. 4 (1818); and Sir M. Foster, Crown Law (1809). See
also the various works on Coronations for the steward’s services on
these occasions.
(L. W. V.-H.)

LORD HIGH TREASURER, in England, once the third
great officer of state. The office was of Norman origin and dated from 1216.
The duty of the treasurer originally was to act as keeper of the royal
treasure at Winchester, while as officer of the exchequer he sat at
Westminster to receive the accounts of the sheriffs, and appoint officers to
collect the revenue. The treasurer was subordinate to both the justiciar and
the chancellor, but the removal of the chancery from the exchequer in the
reign of Richard I., and the abolition of the office of justiciars in the reign
of Henry III., increased his importance. Indeed, from the middle of the
reign of Henry III. he became one of the chief officers of the crown. He
took an important part in the equitable jurisdiction of the exchequer, and
was now styled not merely king’s treasurer or treasurer of the exchequer,
but lord high treasurer and treasurer of the exchequer. The first office was
conferred by delivery of a white staff, the second by patent. Near the end of
the 16th century he had developed into an official so occupied with the
general policy of the country as to be prevented from supervising personally
the details of the department, and Lord Burleigh employed a secretary for
this purpose. On the death of Lord Salisbury in 1612 the office was put in
commission; it was filled from time to time until 1714, when the duke of
Shrewsbury resigned it; since that time it has always been in commission
(see Treasury). The Scottish treasury was merged with the English by the
Act of Union, but the office of lord high treasurer for Ireland was continued
until 1816.

LORD HOWE, an island of the southern Pacific Ocean, lying
about 31° 36′ S., 159° 5′ E., 520 m. E.N.E. of Sydney. Pop. 120. It was
discovered in 1778 by Lieutenant Ball (whose name is commemorated in
the adjacent islet of Ball’s Pyramid), and is a dependency of New South
Wales. It measures about 5½ m. by 1 m., and is well wooded and hilly
(reaching a height of 2840 ft. at the southern end), being of volcanic
formation, while there are coral reefs on the western shore. It has a pleasant
climate. The name Lord Howe is given also to an islet of the Santa Cruz
group, and to two islands, also known under other names—Mopiha, of the
Society group, and Ongtong Java of the Solomon Islands.

LORD JUSTICE CLERK, in Scotland, a judge next in rank to
the lord justice-general. He presides in the second division of the court of
session, and in the absence of the lord justice-general, presides in the court
of justiciary. The justice clerk was originally not a judge at all, but simply
clerk and legal assessor of the justice court. In course of time he was raised
from the clerk’s table to the bench, and by custom presided over the court in

the absence of the justice-general. Up to 1672 his position was somewhat
anomalous, as it was doubtful whether he was a clerk or a judge, but an act
of that year, which suppressed the office of justice-depute, confirmed his
position as a judge, forming him, with the justice-general and five of the
lords of session into the court of justiciary. The lord justice clerk is also one
of the officers of state for Scotland, and one of the commissioners for
keeping the Scottish Regalia. His salary is £4800 a year.

LORD JUSTICE-GENERAL, the highest judge in Scotland,
head of the court of justiciary, called also the lord president, and as such
head of the court of session and representative of the sovereign. The office
of justice-general was for a considerable time a sinecure post held by one of
the Scottish nobility, but by the Court of Session Act 1830, it was enacted
that, at the termination of the existing interest, the office should be united
with that of lord president of the court of session, who then became
presiding judge of the court of justiciary. The salary is £5000 a year.

LORD KEEPER OF THE GREAT SEAL, in England,
formerly a great officer of state. The Great Seal of England, which is
affixed on all solemn occasions to documents expressing the pleasure of the
sovereign, was first adopted by Edward the Confessor (see Seals), and
entrusted to a chancellor for keeping. The office of chancellor from the time
of Becket onwards varied much in importance; the holder being an
ecclesiastic, he was not only engaged in the business of his diocese, but
sometimes was away from England. Consequently, it became not unusual to
place the personal custody of the great seal in the hands of a vice-chancellor
or keeper; this, too, was the practice followed during a temporary vacancy
in the chancellorship. This office gradually developed into a permanent
appointment, and the lord keeper acquired the right of discharging all the
duties connected with the great seal. He was usually, though not necessarily,
a peer, and held office during the king’s pleasure, he was appointed merely
by delivery of the seal, and not, like the chancellor, by patent. His status
was definitely fixed (in the case of lord keeper Sir Nicholas Bacon) by an
act of Elizabeth, which declared him entitled to “like place, pre-eminence,
jurisdiction, execution of laws, and all other customs, commodities, and
advantages” as the lord chancellor. In subsequent reigns the lord keeper was
generally raised to the chancellorship, and retained the custody of the seal.
The last lord keeper was Sir Robert Henley (afterwards Lord Northington),
who was made chancellor on the accession of George III.

LORD MAYOR’S DAY, in England, the 9th of November, the
date of the inauguration of the lord mayor of London (see Vol. XVI., p.
966), marked by a pageant known as the Lord Mayor’s Show. The first of
these pageants was held in 1215. The idea originated in the stipulation made
in a charter then granted by John that the citizen chosen to be mayor should
be presented to the king or his justice for approval. The crowd of citizens
who accompanied the mayor on horseback to Westminster developed into a
yearly pageant, which each season became more elaborate. Until the 15th
century the mayor either rode or walked to Westminster, but in 1453 Sir
John Norman appears to have set a fashion of going by water. From 1639 to
1655 the show disappeared owing to Puritan opposition. With the
Restoration the city pageant was revived, but interregnums occurred during
the years of the plague and fire, and in 1683 when a quarrel broke out
between Charles and the city, ending in the temporary abrogation of the
charter. In 1711 an untoward accident befell the show, the mayor Sir Gilbert
Heathcote (the original of Addison’s Sir Andrew Freeport) being thrown by
his horse. The next year a coach was, in consequence, provided for the chief
magistrate. In 1757 this was superseded by a gilded and elaborately
decorated equipage costing £10,065 which was used till 1896, when a
replica of it was built to replace it.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL, in England,
one of the great officers of state, and a member of the ministry. It was only
in 1679 that the office of lord president became permanent. Previously

either the lord chancellor, the lord keeper of the seal, or some particular
court official took formal direction of the Privy Council. In the reign of
Charles I. a special lord president of the council was appointed, but in the
following reign the office was left unfilled. The office was of considerable
importance when the powers of the Privy Council, exercised through
various committees, were of greater extent than at the present time. For
example, a committee of the lords of the council was formerly responsible
for the work now dealt with by the secretary of state for foreign affairs; so
also with that now discharged by the Board of Trade. The lord president up
to 1855—when a new post of vice-president of the council was created—
was responsible for the education department. He was also responsible for
the duties of the council in regard to public health, now transferred to the
Local Government Board, and for duties in regard to agriculture, now
transferred to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The duties of the
office now consist of presiding on the not very frequent occasions when the
Privy Council meets, and of the drawing up of minutes of council upon
subjects which do not belong to any other department of state. The office is
very frequently held in conjunction with other ministerial offices, for
example, in Gladstone’s fourth ministry the secretary of state for India was
also lord president of the council, and in the conservative ministry of 1903
the holder of the office was also president of the Board of Education. The
lord president is appointed by a declaration made in council by the
sovereign. He is invariably a member of the House of Lords, and he is also
included in the cabinet.

LORDS JUSTICES OF APPEAL, in England, the ordinary
judges of the court of appeal, the appellate division of the High Court of
Justice. Their style was provided for by the Supreme Court of Judicature
Act 1877. The number was fixed at five by the Supreme Court of Judicature
Act 1881, s. 3. Their salary is £5000 a year (see Appeal).

LORDS OF APPEAL IN ORDINARY, in England,
certain persons (limited to four), who, having held high judicial office or
practised at the bar for not less than fifteen years, sit as members of the
House of Lords to adjudicate in cases before that House in its legal
capacity, and also to aid the judicial committee of the Privy Council in
hearing appeals. Of the four lords of appeal in ordinary one is usually
appointed from the Irish bench or bar and one from Scotland. Their salary is
£6000 a year. They hold office on the same conditions as other judges. By
the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, under which they are appointed, lords
of appeal in ordinary are, by virtue of and according to the date of their
appointment, entitled during life to rank as barons and during the time that
they continue in office are entitled to a writ of summons to attend, and to sit
and vote in the House of Lords. They are life peers only. The patent of a
lord of appeal in ordinary differs from that of a baron in that he is not
“created” but “nominated and appointed to be a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary
by the style of Baron.”

LORD STEWARD, in England, an important official of the
king’s household. He is always a member of the government, a peer and a
privy councillor. Up to 1782, the office was one of considerable political
importance and carried cabinet rank. The lord steward receives his
appointment from the sovereign in person, and bears a white staff as the
emblem and warrant of his authority. He is the first dignitary of the court. In
the Statutes of Eltham he is called “the lord great master,” but in the
Household Book of Queen Elizabeth “the lord steward,” as before and
since. In an act of Henry VIII. (1539) “for placing of the lords,” he is
described as “the grand master or lord steward of the king’s most
honourable household.” He presides at the Board of Green Cloth.1 In his
department are the treasurer and comptroller of the household, who rank
next to him. These officials are usually peers or the sons of peers and privy
councillors. They sit at the Board of Green Cloth, carry white staves, and
belong to the ministry. But the duties which in theory belong to the lord
steward, treasurer and comptroller of the household are in practice
performed by the master of the household, who is a permanent officer and
resides in the palace. He is a white-staff officer and a member of the Board
of Green Cloth but not of the ministry, and among other things he presides
at the daily dinners of the suite in waiting on the sovereign. In his case
history repeats itself. He is not named in the Black Book of Edward IV. or in
the Statutes of Henry VIII., and is entered as “master of the household and
clerk of the green cloth” in the Household Book of Queen Elizabeth. But he

has superseded the lord steward of the household, as the lord steward of the
household at one time superseded the lord high steward of England.

In the lord steward’s department are the officials of the Board of Green
Cloth, the coroner (“coroner of the verge”), and paymaster of the
household, and the officers of the almonry (see Almoner). Other offices in
the department were those of the cofferer of the household, the treasurer of
the chamber, and the paymaster of pensions, but these, with six clerks of the
Board of Green Cloth, were abolished in 1782. The lord steward had
formerly three courts besides the Board of Green Cloth under him. First, the
lord steward’s court, superseded (1541) by—second—the Marshalsea court,
a court of record having jurisdiction, both civil and criminal within the
verge (the area within a radius of 12 m. from where the sovereign is
resident), and originally held for the purpose of administering justice
between the domestic servants of the sovereign, “that they might not be
drawn into other courts and their service lost.” Its criminal jurisdiction had
long fallen into disuse and its civil jurisdiction was abolished in 1849.
Third, the palace court, created by letters patent in 1612 and renewed in
1665 with jurisdiction over all personal matters arising between parties
within 12 m. of Whitehall (the jurisdiction of the Marshalsea court, the City
of London, and Westminster Hall being excepted). It differed from the
Marshalsea court in that it had no jurisdiction over the sovereign’s
household nor were its suitors necessarily of the household. The privilege of
practising before the palace court was limited to four counsel. It was
abolished in 1849. The lord steward or his deputies formerly administered
the oaths to the members of the House of Commons. In certain cases
(messages from the sovereign under the sign-manual) “the lords with white
staves” are the proper persons to bear communications between the
sovereign and the houses of parliament.

Authorities.—Statutes of Eltham; Household Book of Queen
Elizabeth; Coke, Institutes; Reeves, History of the Law of England;
Stephen, Commentaries on the Laws of England; Hatsell, Precedents of
Proceedings in the House of Commons; May, Parliamentary Practice.

1 A committee of the king’s household, consisting of the lord steward and his
subordinates, charged with the duty of examining and passing all the accounts of the
household. The board had also power to punish all offenders within the verge or
jurisdiction of the palace, which extended in every direction for 200 yds. from the gates of
the court yard. The name is derived from the green-covered table at which the transactions
of the board were originally conducted.

LORÉ, AMBROISE DE (1396-1446), baron of Ivry in
Normandy and a French commander, was born at the château of Loré
(Orne, arrondissement of Domfront). His first exploit in arms was at the
battle of Agincourt in 1415; he followed the party of the Armagnacs and
attached himself to the dauphin Charles. He waged continual warfare
against the English in Maine until the advent of Joan of Arc. He fought at
Jargeau, at Meung-sur-Loire and at Patay (1429). Using his fortress of Saint
Céneri as a base of operations during the next few years, he seized upon
Matthew Gough near Vivoin in 1431, and made an incursion as far as the
walls of Caen, whence he brought away three thousand prisoners. Taken
captive himself in 1433, he was exchanged for Talbot. In 1435 he and
Dunois defeated the English near Meulan, and in 1436 he helped the
constable Arthur, earl of Richmond (de Richmond), to expel them from

Paris. He was appointed provost of Paris in February 1437, and in 1438 he
was made “judge and general reformer of the malefactors of the kingdom.”
He was present in 1439 at the taking of Meaux, in 1441 at that of Pontoise,
and he died on the 24th of May 1446.

See the Nouvelle Biographie Générale, vol. xxxi., and the Revue
Historique du Maine, vols. iii. and vi.
(J. V.*)

LORE, properly instruction, teaching, knowledge. The O. Eng. lár, as
the Dutch leer and Ger. Lehre, represents the Old Teutonic root, meaning to
impart or receive knowledge, seen in “to learn,” “learning.” In the
Gentleman’s Magazine for June 1830 it was suggested that “lore” should be
used as a termination instead of the Greek derivative -ology in the names of
the various sciences. This was never done, but the word, both as termination
and alone, is frequently applied to the many traditional beliefs, stories, &c.,
connected with the body of knowledge concerning some special subject;
e.g. legendary lore, bird-lore, &c. The most familiar use is in “folk-lore”
(q.v.).

LORELEI (from Old High Ger. Lur, connected with modern Ger.
lauern, “to lurk,” “be on the watch for,” and equivalent to elf, and lai, “a
rock”). The Lorelei is a rock in the Rhine near St Goar, which gives a
remarkable echo, which may partly account for the legend. The tale appears
in many forms, but is best known through Heinrich Heine’s poem,
beginning Ich weiss nicht was soll es bedeuten. In the commonest form of
the story the Lorelei is a maiden who threw herself into the Rhine in despair
over a faithless lover, and became a siren whose voice lured fishermen to
destruction. The 13th-century minnesinger, known as Der Marner, says that
the Nibelungen treasure was hidden beneath the rock. The tale is obviously
closely connected with the myth of Holda, queen of the elves. On the Main
she sits combing her locks on the Hullenstein, and the man who sees her
loses sight or reason, while he who listens is condemned to wander with her
for ever. The legend, which Clemens Brentano claimed as his own
invention when he wrote his poem “Zu Bacharach am Rheine” in his novel
of Godwi (1802), bears all the marks of popular mythology. In the 19th
century it formed material for a great number of songs, dramatic sketches,
operas and even tragedies, which are enumerated by Dr Hermann Seeliger
in his Loreleysage in Dichtung und Musik (Leipzig-Reudnitz, 1898). The
favourite poem with composers was Heine’s, set to music by some twenty-
five musicians, the settings by Friedrich Silcher (from an old folk-song) and
by Liszt being the most famous.

LORETO, an episcopal see and pilgrimage resort of the Marches,
Italy, in the province of Ancona, 15 m. by rail S.S.E. of that town. Pop.
(1901) 1178 (town), 8033 (commune). It lies upon the right bank of the
Musone, at some distance from the railway station, on a hill-side
commanding splendid views from the Apennines to the Adriatic, 341 ft.
above sea-level. The town itself consists of little more than one long narrow
street, lined with shops for the sale of rosaries, medals, crucifixes and
similar objects, the manufacture of which is the sole industry of the place.
The number of pilgrims is said to amount to 50,000 annually, the chief
festival being held on the 8th of September, the Nativity of the Virgin. The
principal buildings, occupying the four sides of the piazza, are the college
of the Jesuits, the Palazzo Apostolico, now Reale (designed by Bramante),
which contains a picture gallery with works of Lorenzo Lotto, Vouet and
Caracci and a collection of majolica, and the cathedral church of the Holy
House (Chiesa della Casa Santa), a Late Gothic structure continued by
Giuliano da Maiano, Giuliano da Sangallo and Bramante. The handsome
façade of the church was erected under Sixtus V., who fortified Loreto and
gave it the privileges of a town (1586); his colossal statue stands in the
middle of the flight of steps in front. Over the principal doorway is a life-
size bronze statue of the Virgin and Child by Girolamo Lombardo; the three
superb bronze doors executed at the latter end of the 16th century and under
Paul V. (1605-1621) are also by Lombardo, his sons and his pupils, among
them Tiburzio Vergelli, who also made the fine bronze font in the interior.

The doors and hanging lamps of the Santa Casa are by the same artists. The
richly decorated campanile, by Vanvitelli, is of great height; the principal
bell, presented by Leo X. in 1516, weighs 11 tons. The interior of the
church has mosaics by Domenichino and Guido Reni and other works of
art. In the sacristies on each side of the right transept are frescoes, on the
right by Melozzo da Forli, on the left by Luca Signorelli. In both are fine
intarsias.

But the chief object of interest is the Holy House itself. It is a plain stone
building, 28 ft. by 12½ and 13½ ft. in height; it has a door on the north side
and a window on the west; and a niche contains a small black image of the
Virgin and Child, in Lebanon cedar, and richly adorned with jewels. St
Luke is alleged to have been the sculptor; its workmanship suggests the
latter half of the 15th century. Around the Santa Casa is a lofty marble
screen, designed by Bramante, and executed under Popes Leo X., Clement
VII. and Paul III., by Andrea Sansovino, Girolamo Lombardo, Bandinelli,
Guglielmo della Porta and others. The four sides represent the
Annunciation, the Nativity, the Arrival of the Santa Casa at Loreto and the
Nativity of the Virgin respectively. The treasury contains a large variety of
rich and curious votive offerings. The architectural design is finer than the
details of the sculpture. The choir apse is decorated with modern German
frescoes, which are somewhat out of place.

The legend of the Holy House seems to have sprung up (how is not
exactly known) at the close of the crusading period.

It is briefly referred to in the Italia Illustrata of Flavius Blondus,
secretary to Popes Eugenius IV., Nicholas V., Calixtus III. and Pius II. (ob.
1464); it is to be read in all its fullness in the “Redemptoris mundi Matris
Ecclesiae Lauretana historia,” by a certain Teremannus, contained in the
Opera Omnia (1576) of Baptista Mantuanus. According to this narrative the
house at Nazareth in which Mary had been born and brought up, had

received the annunciation, and had lived during the childhood of Jesus and
after His ascension, was converted into a church by the apostles. In 336 the
empress Helena made a pilgrimage to Nazareth and caused a basilica to be
erected over it, in which worship continued until the fall of the kingdom of
Jerusalem. Threatened with destruction by the Turks, it was carried by
angels through the air and deposited (1291) in the first instance on a hill at
Tersatto in Dalmatia, where an appearance of the Virgin and numerous
miraculous cures attested its sanctity, which was confirmed by
investigations made at Nazareth by messengers from the governor of
Dalmatia. In 1294 the angels carried it across the Adriatic to a wood near
Recanati; from this wood (lauretum), or from the name of its proprietrix
(Laureta), the chapel derived the name which it still retains (“sacellum
gloriosae Virginis in Laureto”). From this spot it was afterwards (1295)
removed to the present hill, one other slight adjustment being required to fix
it in its actual site. Bulls in favour of the shrine at Loreto were issued by
Pope Sixtus IV. in 1491 and by Julius II. in 1507, the last alluding to the
translation of the house with some caution (“ut pie creditur et fama est”).
The recognition of the sanctuary by subsequent pontiffs has already been
alluded to. In the end of the 17th century Innocent XII. appointed a “missa
cum officio proprio” for the feast of the Translation of the Holy House, and
the feast is still enjoined in the Spanish Breviary as a “greater double”
(December 10).

See also U. Chevalier, Notre-Dame de Lorette (Paris, 1906).

LORETO, an inland department of Peru, lying E. of the Andean
Cordilleras and forming the N.E. part of the republic. Extensive territories,
nominally parts of this department, are in dispute between Peru and the
neighbouring republics of Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador (see Peru), and
the northern and eastern boundaries of the territory are therefore not
definitely determined. Loreto is bounded W. by the departments of
Amazonas and San Martin (the latter a new department, with an area of
30,744 sq. m., taken from Loreto, lying between the central and eastern
Cordilleras and extending from the 6th to the 9th parallels, approximately),
and S. by Huánuco and Cuzco. The area of the department, including the
territories claimed by Peru, is estimated at 257,798 sq. m. The population is
estimated (1906) at 120,000. The aboriginal population is not numerous, as
the thick, humid forests are inhabited only where lakes and streams make
open spaces for sunlight and ventilation. With the exception of the eastern
Andean slopes and a little-known range of low mountains on the Brazilian
frontier, called the Andes Conomamas, the surface is that of a thickly
wooded plain sloping gently towards the Marañon, or Upper Amazon,
which crosses it from W. to E. There are open plains between the Ucayali
and Huallaga, known as the Pampas del Sacramento, but otherwise there are
no extensive breaks in the forest. The elevation of the plain near the base of
the Andes is 526 ft. on the Ucayali, 558 on the Huallaga, and 453 at
Barranca, on the Marañon, a few miles below the Pongo de Manseriche.
The eastward slope of the plain is about 250 ft. in the 620 m. (direct)
between this point and Tabatinga, on the Brazilian frontier; this not only
shows the remarkably level character of the Amazon valley of which it
forms a part, but also the sluggish character of its drainage. From the S. the
principal rivers traversing Loreto are the Ucayali and Huallaga, the former
entering from Cuzco across its southern boundary and skirting the eastern
base of the Andes for about four degrees of latitude before it turns away to
the N.E. to join the Marañon, and the latter breaking through the Eastern

Cordillera between the 6th and 7th parallels and entering the Marañon 143
m. below Yurimaguas, where navigation begins. The lower Ucayali, which
has a very tortuous course, is said to have 868 m. of navigable channel at
high water and 620 m. at low water. North of the Marañon several large
rivers pass through Peruvian territory between the Santiago and Napo (see
Ecuador), nearly all having navigable channels. On the level plains are a
number of lakes, some are formed by the annual floods and are temporary
in character. Among the permanent lakes are the Gran Cocama, of the
Pampas del Sacramento, the Caballococha—a widening of the Amazon
itself about 60 m. N.W. of Tabatinga—and Rimachuma, on the north side of
the Marañon, near the lower Pastaza.

The natural resources of this extensive region are incalculable, but their
development has been well nigh impossible through lack of transport
facilities. They include the characteristic woods of the Amazon valley,
rubber, nuts, cinchona or Peruvian bark, medicinal products, fish, fruits and
fibres. The cultivated products include cocoa, coffee, tobacco and fruits.
Straw hats and hammocks are manufactured to some extent. The natural
outlet of this region is the Amazon river, but this involves 2500 m. of river
navigation from Iquitos before the ocean is reached. Communication with
the Pacific coast cities and ports of Peru implies the crossing of three high,
snow-covered ranges of the Andes by extremely difficult trails and passes.
A rough mountain road has been constructed from Oroya to Puerto
Bermudez, at the head of navigation on the Pachitea, and is maintained by
the government pending the construction of a railway, but the distance is
210 m. and it takes nine days for a mule train to make the journey. At
Puerto Bermudez a river steamer connects with Iquitos, making the distance
of 930 m. in seven days. From Lima to Iquitos by this route, therefore,
involves 17 days travel over a distance of 1268 m. The most feasible route
from the department to the Pacific coast is that which connects Puerto
Limon, on the Marañon, with the Pacific port of Payta, a distance of 410 m.,

it being possible to cross the Andes on this route at the low elevation of
6600 ft. The climate of Loreto is hot and humid, except on the higher slopes
of the Andes. The year is divided into a wet and a dry season, the first from
May to October, and the average annual rainfall is estimated at 70 in.
though it varies widely between distant points. The capital and only town of
importance in the department is Iquitos.

LORIENT, a maritime town of western France, capital of an
arrondissement in the department of Morbihan, on the right bank of the
Scorff at its confluence with the Blavet, 34 m. W. by N. of Vannes by rail.
Pop. (1906) 40,848. The town is modern and regularly built. Its chief
objects of interest are the church of St Louis (1709) and a statue by A.
Mercié of Victor Massé, the composer, born at Lorient in 1822. It is one of
the five maritime prefectures in France and the first port for naval
construction in the country. The naval port to the east of the town is formed
by the channel of the Scorff, on the right bank of which the chief naval
establishments are situated. These include magazines, foundries, forges,
fitting-shops, rope-works and other workshops on the most extensive scale,
as well as a graving dock, a covered slip and other slips. A floating bridge
connects the right bank with the peninsula of Caudan formed by the union
of the Scorff and Blavet. Here are the shipbuilding yards covering some 38
acres, and comprising nine slips for large vessels and two others for smaller
vessels, besides forges and workshops for iron shipbuilding. The
commercial port to the south of the town consists of an outer tidal port

protected by a jetty and of an inner dock, both lined by fine quays planted
with trees. It separates the older part of the town, which is hemmed in by
fortifications from a newer quarter. In 1905, 121 vessels of 28,785 tons
entered with cargo and 145 vessels of 38,207 tons cleared. The chief export
is pit-timber, the chief import is coal. Fishing is actively carried on. Lorient
is the seat of a sub-prefect, of commercial and maritime tribunals and of a
tribunal of first instance, and has a chamber of commerce, a board of trade-
arbitrators, a lycée, schools of navigation, and naval artillery. Private
industry is also engaged in iron-working and engine making. The trade in
fresh fish, sardines, oysters (which are reared near Lorient) and tinned
vegetables is important and the manufacture of basket-work, tin-boxes and
passementerie, arid the preparation of preserved sardines and vegetables are
carried on. The roadstead, formed by the estuary of the Blavet, is accessible
to vessels of the largest size; the entrance, 3 or 4 m. south from Lorient,
which is defended by numerous forts, is marked on the east by the
peninsula of Gâvres (an artillery practising ground) and the fortified town
of Port Louis; on the west are the fort of Loqueltas and, higher up, the
battery of Kernevel. In the middle of the channel is the granite rock of St
Michel, occupied by a powder magazine. Opposite it, on the right bank of
the Blavet, is the mouth of the river Ter, with fish and oyster breeding
establishments from which 10 millions of oysters are annually obtained.
The roadstead is provided with six lighthouses. Above Lorient on the
Scorff, here spanned by a suspension bridge, is Kérentrech, a pretty village
surrounded by numerous country houses.

Lorient took the place of Port Louis as the port of the Blavet. The latter
stands on the site of an ancient hamlet which was fortified during the wars
of the League and handed over by Philip Emmanuel, duke of Morcœur, to
the Spaniards. After the treaty of Vervins it was restored to France, and it
received its name of Port Louis under Richelieu. Some Breton merchants
trading with the Indies had established themselves first at Port Louis, but in

1628 they built their warehouses on the other bank. The Compagnie des
Indes Orientales, created in 1664, took possession of these, giving them the
name of l’Orient. In 1745 the Compagnie des Indes, then at the acme of its
prosperity, owned thirty-five ships of the largest class and many others of
considerable size. Its decadence dates from the English conquest of India,
and in 1770 its property was ceded to the state. In 1782 the town was
purchased by Louis XVI. from its owners, the Rohan-Guéméné family. In
1746 the English under Admiral Richard Lestock made an unsuccessful
attack on Lorient.

LORINER, or Lorimer (from O. Fr. loremier or lorenier, a maker of
lorains, bridles, from Lat. lorum, thong, bridle; the proper form is with the
n; a similar change is found in Latimer for Latiner, the title of an old official
of the royal household, the king’s interpreter), one who makes bits and
spurs and the metal mountings for saddles and bridles; the term is also
applied to a worker in wrought iron and to a maker of small iron ware. The
word is now rarely used except as the name of one of the London livery
companies (see Livery Company).

LORIS, a name of uncertain origin applied to the Indo-Malay
representatives of the lemurs, which, together with the African pottos,
constitute the section Nycticebinae of the family Nycticebidae (see
Primates). From their extremely slow movements and lethargic habits in the
daytime these weird little creatures are commonly called sloths by Anglo-
Indians. Their soft fur, huge staring eyes, rudimentary tails and imperfectly
developed index-fingers render lorises easy of recognition. The smallest is
the slender loris (Loris gracilis) of the forests of Madras and Ceylon, a
creature smaller than a squirrel. It is of such exceeding strangeness and
beauty that it might have been thought it would be protected by the natives;
but they hold it alive before a fire till its beautiful eyes burst in order to
afford a supposed remedy for ophthalmia! The mainland and Cingalese
animals form distinct races. Both in this species and the slow loris there is a
pair of rudimentary abdominal teats in addition to the normal pectoral pair.
The slow loris (Nycticebus tardigradus) is a heavier built and larger animal,
ranging from eastern Bengal to Cochin China, Siam, the Malay Peninsula,
Java and Sumatra. There are several races, mostly grey in colour, but the
Sumatran N. t. hilleri is reddish.
(R. L.*)

LORIS-MELIKOV, MICHAEL TARIELOVICH,
Count (1825?-1888), Russian statesman, son of an Armenian merchant,
was born at Tiflis in 1825 or 1826, and educated in St Petersburg, first in
the Lazarev School of Oriental Languages, and afterwards in the Guards’
Cadet Institute. He joined a hussar regiment, and four years afterwards
(1847) he was sent to the Caucasus, where he remained for more than
twenty years, and made for himself during troublous times the reputation of
a distinguished cavalry officer and an able administrator. In the latter
capacity, though a keen soldier, he aimed always at preparing the warlike
and turbulent population committed to his charge for the transition from
military to normal civil administration, and in this work his favourite
instrument was the schoolmaster. In the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 he
commanded a separate corps d’armée on the Turkish frontier in Asia Minor.
After taking the fortress of Ardahan, he was repulsed by Mukhtar Pasha at
Zevin, but subsequently defeated his opponent at Aladja Dagh, took Kars by
storm, and laid siege to Erzerum. For these services he received the title of
Count. In the following year he was appointed temporary governor-general
of the region of the Lower Volga, to combat an outbreak of the plague. The
measures he adopted proved so effectual that he was transferred to the
provinces of Central Russia to combat the Nihilists and Anarchists, who had
adopted a policy of terrorism, and had succeeded in assassinating the
governor of Kharkov. His success in this struggle led to his being appointed
chief of the Supreme Executive Commission which had been created in St

Petersburg to deal with the revolutionary agitation in general. Here, as in
the Caucasus, he showed a decided preference for the employment of
ordinary legal methods rather than exceptional extra-legal measures, and an
attempt on his own life soon after he assumed office did not shake his
convictions. In his opinion the best policy was to strike at the root of the
evil by removing the causes of popular discontent, and for this purpose he
recommended to the emperor a large scheme of administrative and
economic reforms. Alexander II., who was beginning to lose faith in the
efficacy of the simple method of police repression hitherto employed, lent a
willing ear to the suggestion; and when the Supreme Commission was
dissolved in August 1880, he appointed Count Loris-Melikov Minister of
the Interior with exceptional powers. The proposed scheme of reforms was
at once taken in hand, but it was never carried out. On the very day in
March 1881 that the emperor signed a ukaz creating several commissions,
composed of officials and eminent private individuals, who should prepare
reforms in various branches of the administration, he was assassinated by
Nihilist conspirators; and his successor, Alexander III., at once adopted a
strongly reactionary policy. Count Loris-Melikov immediately resigned,
and lived in retirement until his death, which took place at Nice on the 22nd
of December 1888.
(D. M. W.)

LORIUM, an ancient village of Etruria, Italy, on the Via Aurelia, 12
m. W. of Rome. Antoninus Pius, who was educated here, afterwards built a
palace, in which he died. It was also a favourite haunt of Marcus Aurelius.

Remains of ancient buildings exist in the neighbourhood of the road on
each side (near the modern Castel di Guido) and remains of tombs,
inscriptions, &c., were excavated in 1823-1824. Two or three miles farther
west was probably the post-station of Bebiana, where inscriptions show that
some sailors of the fleet were stationed—no doubt a detachment of those at
Centumcellae, which was reached by this road.

LÖRRACH, a town in the grand-duchy of Baden, in the valley of
the Wiese, 6 m. by rail N.E. of Basel. Pop. (1905) 10,794. It is the seat of
considerable industry, its manufactures including calico, shawls, cloth, silk,
chocolate, cotton, ribbons, hardware and furniture, and has a trade in wine,
fruit and timber. There is a fine view from the neighbouring Schützenhaus,
1085 ft. high. In the neighbourhood also is the castle of Rötteln, formerly
the residence of the counts of Hachberg and of the margraves of Baden; this
was destroyed by the French in 1678, but was rebuilt in 1867. Lörrach
received market rights in 1403, but did not obtain municipal privileges until
1682.

See Höchstetter, Die Stadt Lörrach (Lörrach, 1882).

LORRAINE, one of the former provinces of France. The name has
designated different districts in different periods. Lotharingia, or
Lothringen, i.e. regnum Lotharii, is derived from the Lotharingi or
Lotharienses (O.G. Lotheringen, Fr. Loherains, Lorrains), a term applied
originally to the Frankish subjects of Lothair, but restricted at the end of the
9th century to those who dwelt north of the southern Vosges.

Lorraine in Medieval Times.—The original kingdom of Lorraine was the
northern part of the territories allotted by the treaty of Verdun (August 843)
to the emperor Lothair I., and in 855 formed the inheritance of his second
son, King Lothair. This kingdom of Lorraine was situated between the
realms of the East and the West Franks, and originally extended along the
North Sea between the mouths of the Rhine and the Ems, including the
whole or part of Frisia and the cities on the right bank of the Rhine. From
Bonn the frontier followed the Rhine as far as its confluence with the Aar,
which then became the boundary, receding from the left bank in the
neighbourhood of Bingen so as to leave the cities of Worms and Spires to
Germany, and embracing the duchy of Alsace. After crossing the Jura, the
frontier joined the Saône a little south of its confluence with the Doubs, and
followed the Saône for some distance, and finally the valleys of the Meuse
and the Scheldt. Thus the kingdom roughly comprised the region watered
by the Moselle and the Meuse, together with the dioceses of Cologne, Trier,
Metz, Toul, Verdun, Liége and Cambrai, Basel, Strassburg and Besançon,
and corresponded to what is now Holland and Belgium, parts of Rhenish

Prussia, of Switzerland, and of the old province of Franche-Comté, and to
the district known later as Upper Lorraine, or simply Lorraine. Though
apparently of an absolutely artificial character, this kingdom corresponded
essentially to the ancient Francia, the cradle of the Carolingian house, and
long retained a certain unity. It was to the inhabitants of this region that the
name of Lotharienses or Lotharingi was primitively applied, although the
word Lotharingia, as the designation of the country, only appears in the
middle of the 10th century.

The reign of King Lothair (q.v.), which was continually disturbed by
quarrels with his uncles, Charles the Bald and Louis the German, and by the
difficulties caused by the divorce of his queen Teutberga, whom he had
forsaken for a concubine called Waldrada, ended on the 8th of August 869.
His inheritance was disputed by his uncles, and was divided by the treaty of
Meersen (8th of August 870), by which Charles the Bald received part of
the province of Besançon and some land between the Moselle and the
Meuse. Then for a time the emperor Charles the Fat united under his
authority the whole of the kingdom of Lorraine with the rest of the
Carolingian empire. After the deposition of Charles in 888 Rudolph, king of
Burgundy, got himself recognized in Lorraine. He was unable to maintain
himself there, and succeeded in detaching definitively no more than the
province of Besançon. Lorraine remained in the power of the emperor
Arnulf, who in 895 constituted it a distinct kingdom in favour of his son
Zwentibold. Zwentibold quickly became embroiled with the nobles and the
bishops, and especially with Bishop Radbod of Trier. Among the lay lords
the most important was Regnier (incorrectly called Long-neck), count of
Hesbaye and Hainault, who is styled duke by the Lotharingian chronicler
Reginon, though he does not appear ever to have borne the title. In 898
Zwentibold stripped Regnier of his fiefs, whereupon the latter appealed to
the king of France, Charles the Simple, whose intervention, however, had
no enduring effect. After the death of Arnulf in 899, the Lotharingians

appealed to his successor, Louis the Child, to replace Zwentibold, who, on
the 13th of August 900, was killed in battle. In spite of the dissensions
which immediately arose between him and the Lotharingian lords, Louis
retained the kingdom till his death. The Lotharingians, however, refused to
recognize the new German king, Conrad I., and testified their attachment to
the Carolingian house by electing as sovereign the king of the West Franks,
Charles the Simple. Charles was at first supported by Giselbert, son and
successor of Regnier, but was abandoned by his ally, who in 919 appealed
to the German king, Henry I. The struggle ended in the treaty of Bonn
(921), by which apparently the rights of Charles over Lorraine were
recognized. The revolt of the Frankish lords in 922 and the captivity of
Charles finally settled the question. After an unsuccessful attack by
Rudolph or Raoul, king of France, Henry became master of Lorraine in 925,
thanks to the support of Giselbert, whom he rewarded with the hand of his
daughter Gerberga and the title of duke of Lorraine. Giselbert at first
remained faithful to Henry’s son, Otto the Great, but in 938 he appears to
have joined the revolt directed against Otto by Eberhard, duke of Franconia.
In 939, in concert with Eberhard and Otto’s brother, Henry of Saxony, he
declared open war against Otto and appealed to Louis d’Outremer, who
penetrated into Lorraine and Alsace, but was soon called back to France by
the revolt of the count of Vermandois. In the same year Giselbert and
Eberhard were defeated and killed near Andernach, and Otto at once made
himself recognized in the whole of Lorraine, securing it by a treaty with
Louis d’Outremer, who married Giselbert’s widow Gerberga, and entrusting
the government of it to Count Otto, son of Ricuin, until Giselbert’s son
Henry should have attained his majority.

After the deaths of the young Henry and Count Otto in 944, Otto the
Great gave Lorraine to Conrad the Red, duke of Franconia, the husband of
his daughter Liutgard, a choice which was not completely satisfactory to the
Lotharingians. In 953 Conrad, in concert with Liudulf, the son of the

German king, revolted against Otto, but was abandoned by his supporters.
Otto stripped Conrad of his duchy, and in 954 gave the government of it to
his own brother Bruno, archbishop of Cologne. Bruno had to contend
against the efforts of the last Carolingians of France to make good their
claims on Lorraine, as well as against the spirit of independence exhibited
by the Lotharingian nobles; and his attempts to raze certain castles built by
brigand lords and to compel them to respect their oath of fidelity resulted in
serious sedition. To obviate these difficulties Bruno divided the ducal
authority, assigning Lower Lorraine to a certain Duke Godfrey, who was
styled dux Ripuariorum, and Upper Lorraine to Frederick (d. 959), count of
Bar, a member of the house of Ardenne and son-in-law of Hugh the Great,
with the title of dux Mosellanorum; and it is probable that the partition of
the ancient kingdom of Lorraine into two new duchies was confirmed by
Otto after Bruno’s death in 965. In 977 the emperor Otto II. gave the
government of Lower Lorraine to Charles I., a younger son of Louis
d’Outremer, on condition that that prince should acknowledge himself his
vassal and should oppose any attempt of his brother Lothair on Lorraine.
The consequent expedition of the king of France in 978 against Aix-la-
Chapelle had no enduring result, and Charles retained his duchy till his
death about 992. He left two sons, Otto, who succeeded him and died
without issue, and Henry, who is sometimes regarded as the ancestor of the
landgraves of Thuringia. The duchy of Lower Lorraine, sometimes called
Lothier (Lotharium), was then given to Godfrey (d. 1023), son of Count
Godfrey of Verdun, and for some time the history of Lorraine is the history
of the attempts made by the dukes of Lothier to seize Upper Lorraine.
Gothelon (d. 1043), son of Duke Godfrey, obtained Lorraine at the death of
Frederick II., duke of Upper Lorraine, in 1027, and victoriously repulsed
the incursions of Odo (Eudes) of Blois, count of Champagne, who was
defeated and killed in a battle near Bar (1037). At Gothelon’s death in 1043,
his son Godfrey the Bearded received from the emperor only Lower

Lorraine, his brother Gothelon II. obtaining Upper Lorraine. Godfrey
attempted to seize the upper duchy, but was defeated and imprisoned in
1045. On the death of Gothelon in 1046, Godfrey endeavoured to take
Upper Lorraine from Albert of Alsace, to whom it had been granted by the
emperor Henry III. The attempt, however, also failed; and Godfrey was for
some time deprived of his own duchy of Lower Lorraine in favour of
Frederick of Luxemburg. Godfrey took part in the struggles of Pope Leo IX.
against the Normans in Italy, and in 1053 married Beatrice, daughter of
Duke Frederick of Upper Lorraine and widow of Boniface, margrave of
Tuscany. On the death of Frederick of Luxemburg in 1065 the emperor
Henry IV. restored the duchy of Lower Lorraine to Godfrey, who retained it
till his death in 1069, when he was succeeded by his son Godfrey the
Hunchback (d. 1076), after whose death Henry IV. gave the duchy to
Godfrey of Bouillon, the hero of the first crusade, son of Eustace, count of
Boulogne, and Ida, sister of Godfrey the Hunchback. On the death of
Godfrey of Bouillon in 1100 Lower Lorraine was given to Henry, count of
Limburg. The new duke supported the emperor Henry IV. in his struggles
with his sons, and in consequence was deposed by the emperor Henry V.,
who gave the duchy in 1106 to Godfrey, count of Louvain, a descendant of
the Lotharingian dukes of the beginning of the 10th century. This Godfrey
was the first hereditary duke of Brabant, as the dukes of Lower Lorraine
came to be called.

Upper Lorraine.—The duchy of Upper Lorraine, or Lorraine Mosellana,
to which the name of Lorraine was restricted from the 11th century,
consisted of a tract of undulating country watered by the upper course of the
Meuse and Moselle, and bounded N. by the Ardennes, S. by the table-land
of Langres, E. by the Vosges and W. by Champagne. Its principal fiefs were
the countship of Bar which Otto the Great gave in 951 to Count Frederick
of Ardenne, and which passed in 1093 to the lords of Montbéliard; the
countship of Chiny, formed at the end of the 10th century, of which, since

the 13th, Montmédy was the capital; the lordship of Commercy, whose
rulers bore the special title of damoiseau, and which passed in the 13th
century to the house of Saarebrücken; and, finally the three important
ecclesiastical lordships of the bishops of Metz, Toul and Verdun. Theodoric,
or Thierri (d. 1026), son of Frederick, count of Bar and first duke of Upper
Lorraine, was involved in a war with the emperor Henry II., a war
principally remarkable for the siege of Metz (1007). After having been the
object of numerous attempts on the part of the dukes of Lower Lorraine,
Upper Lorraine was given by the emperor Henry III. to Albert of Alsace,
and passed in 1048 to Albert’s brother Gerard, who died by poison in 1069,
and who was the ancestor of the hereditary house of Lorraine. Until the
15th century the representatives of the hereditary house were Theodoric II.,
called the Valiant (1069-1115), Simon (1115-1139), Matthew (1139-1176),
Simon II. (1176-1205), Ferri I. (1205-1206), Ferri II. (1206-1213),
Theobald (Thibaut) I. (1213-1220), Matthew II. (1220-1251), Ferri III.
(1251-1304), Theobald II. (1304-1312), Ferri IV., called the Struggler
(1312-1328), Rudolph, or Raoul (1328-1346), John (1346-1391) and
Charles II. or I., called the Bold (1391-1431). The 12th century and the first
part of the 13th were occupied with wars against the counts of Bar and
Champagne. Theobald I. intervened in Champagne to support Erard of
Brienne against the young count Theobald IV. The regent of Champagne,
Blanche of Navarre, succeeded in forming against the duke of Lorraine a
coalition consisting of the count of Bar and the emperor Frederick II., who
had become embroiled with Theobald over the question of Rosheim in
Alsace. Attacked by the emperor, the duke of Lorraine was forced at the
treaty of Amance (1218) to acknowledge himself the vassal of the count of
Champagne, and to support the count in his struggles against his ancient
ally the count of Bar. The long government of Ferri III. was mainly
occupied with wars against the feudal lords and the bishop of Metz, which
resulted in giving an impulse to the municipal movement through Ferri’s

attempt to use the movement as a weapon against the nobles. The majority
of the municipal charters of Lorraine were derived from the charter of
Beaumont in Argonne, which was at first extended to the Barrois and was
granted by Ferri, in spite of the hostility of his barons, to La Neuveville in
1257, to Frouard in 1263 and to Lunéville in 1265. In the church lands the
bishops of Toul and Metz granted liberties from the end of the 12th century
to the communes in their lordship, but not the Beaumont charter, which,
however, obtained in the diocese of Verdun in the 14th and 15th centuries.

By the will of Duke Charles the Bold, Lorraine was to pass to his
daughter Isabella, who married René of Anjou, duke of Bar, in 1420. But
Anthony of Vaudemont, Charles’s nephew and heir male, disputed this
succession with René, who obtained from the king of France an army
commanded by Arnault Guilhem de Barbazan. René, however, was defeated
and taken prisoner at the battle of Bulgnéville, where Barbazan was killed
(2nd of July 1431). The negotiations between René’s wife and Anthony had
no result, in spite of the intervention of the council of Basel and the
emperor Sigismund, and it was not until 1436 that René obtained his liberty
by paying a ransom of 200,000 crowns, and was enabled to dispute with
Alfonso of Aragon the kingdom of Naples, which he had inherited in the
previous year. In 1444 Charles VII. of France and the dauphin Louis went
to Lorraine, accompanied by envoys from Henry VI. of England, and
procured a treaty (confirmed at Chalons in 1445), by which Yolande, René’s
eldest daughter, married Anthony’s son, Ferri of Vaudemont, and René’s
second daughter Margaret became the wife of Henry VI. of England. After
his return to Lorraine in 1442, René was seldom in the duchy. Like his
successor John, duke of Calabria, who died in 1470, he was continually
occupied with expeditions in Italy or in Spain. John’s son and successor,
Nicholas (d. 1473), who supported the duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold,
against the king of France, died without children, and his heir was René,
son of Frederick of Vaudemont. The duke of Burgundy, however, disputed

this inheritance, and carried off the young René and his mother, but on the
intervention of Louis XI. had to set them at liberty. René helped the Swiss
during their wars with Charles the Bold, who invaded Lorraine and was
killed under the walls of Nancy (1477). René’s last years were mainly spent
in expeditions in Provence and Italy. He died in 1508, leaving by his second
wife three sons—Anthony, called the Good, who succeeded him; Claude,
count (and afterwards duke) of Guise, the ancestor of the house of Guise;
and John (d. 1550), known as the cardinal of Lorraine. Anthony, who was
declared of age at his father’s death by the estates of Lorraine, although his
mother had tried to seize the power as regent, had been brought up from the
age of twelve at the French court, where he became the friend of Louis XII.,
whom he accompanied on his Italian expeditions. In 1525 he had to defend
Lorraine against the revolted Alsatian peasants known as rustauds (boors),
whom he defeated at Lupstein and Scherweiler; and he succeeded in
maintaining a neutral position in the struggle between Francis I. of France
and the emperor Charles V. He died on the 14th of June 1544, and was
succeeded by his son Francis I., who died of apoplexy (August 1545) at the
very moment when he was negotiating peace between the king of France
and the emperor.

Lorraine in Modern Times.—Francis’s son Charles III. or II., called the
Great, succeeded under the tutelage of his mother and Nicholas of
Vaudemont, bishop of Metz. Henry II. of France took this opportunity to
invade Lorraine, and in 1552 seized the three bishoprics of Metz, Toul and
Verdun. In the same year the emperor laid siege to Metz, but was forced to
retreat with heavy loss before the energetic resistance of Duke Francis of
Guise. On leaving Lorraine, Henry II. took Charles to France, brought him
up at the court and married him to his daughter Claude. After the accession
of Francis II., the young duke returned to Lorraine, and, while his cousins
the Guises endeavoured to make good the claims of the house of Lorraine to
the crown of France by virtue of its descent from the Carolingians through

Charles, the son of Louis d’Outremer, he devoted himself mainly to
improving the administration of his duchy. He reconstituted his domain by
revoking the alienations irregularly granted by his predecessors, instructed
his chambre des comptes to institute inquiries on this subject, and
endeavoured to ameliorate the condition of industry and commerce by
reorganizing the working of the mines and saltworks, unifying weights and
measures and promulgating edicts against vagabonds. His duchy suffered
considerably from the passage of German bands on their way to help the
Protestants in France, and also from disturbances caused by the progress of
Calvinism, especially in the neighbourhood of the three bishoprics. To
combat Calvinism Charles had recourse to the Jesuits, whom he established
at Pont-à Mousson, and to whom he gave over the university he had
founded in that town in 1572. To this foundation he soon added chairs of
medicine and law, the first professor of civil law being the maître des
requêtes, the Scotsman William Barclay, and the next Gregory of Toulouse,
a pupil of the jurist Cujas. Charles died on the 14th of May 1608, and was
succeeded by his eldest son Henry II., called the Good, who rid Lorraine of
the German bands and died in 1624 without issue.

Henry was succeeded by his brother Francis II., who abdicated on the
26th of November 1624 in favour of his son Charles IV. or III. At the
beginning of the reign of Louis XIII. Charles embroiled himself with
France by harbouring French malcontents. Louis entered Lorraine, and by
the treaty of Vic (31st of December 1631) bound over Charles to desist
from supporting the enemies of France, and compelled him to cede the
fortress of Marsal. Charles’s breach of this treaty led to a renewal of
hostilities, and the French troops occupied St Mihiel, Bar-le-duc, Pont-à-
Mousson and Nancy, which the duke was forced to cede for four years
(1633). In 1632, by the treaty of Liverdun, he had already had to abandon
the fortresses of Stenay and Clermont in Argonne. On the 19th of January
1634 he abdicated in favour of his younger brother Francis Nicholas,

cardinal of Lorraine, and withdrew to Germany, the parlement of Paris
declaring him guilty of rebellion and confiscating his estates. After vain
attempts to regain his estates with the help of the emperor, he decided to
negotiate with France; and the treaty of St Germain (29th of March 1641)
re-established him in his duchy on condition that he should cede Nancy,
Stenay and other fortresses until the general peace. This treaty he soon
broke, joining the Imperialists in the Low Countries and defeating the
French at Tuttlingen (December 1643). He was restored, however, to his
estates in 1644, and took part in the wars of the Fronde. He was arrested at
Brussels in 1654, imprisoned at Toledo and did not recover his liberty until
the peace of the Pyrenees in 1659. On the 28th of February 1661 the
duchies of Lorraine and Bar were restored to him by the treaty of
Vincennes, on condition that he should demolish the fortifications of Nancy
and cede Clermont, Saarburg and Pfalzburg. In 1662 Hugues de Lionne
negotiated with him the treaty of Montmartre, by which Charles sold the
succession to the duchy to Louis XIV. for a life-rent; but the Lorrainers,
perhaps with the secret assent of their prince, refused to ratify the treaty.
Charles, too, was accused of intriguing with the Dutch, and was expelled
from his estates, Marshal de Créqui occupying Lorraine. He withdrew to
Germany, and in 1673 took an active part in the coalition of Spain, the
Empire and Holland against France. After an unsuccessful invasion of
Franche-Comté he took his revenge by defeating Créqui at Conzer Brücke
(11th of August 1675) and forcing him to capitulate at Trier. On the 18th of
September 1675 died this adventurous prince, who, as Voltaire said, passed
his life in losing his estates. His brother Francis, in favour of whom he had
abdicated, was a cardinal at the age of nineteen and subsequently bishop of
Toul, although he had never taken orders. He obtained a dispensation to
marry his cousin, Claude of Lorraine, and died in 1670. He had one son,
Charles, who in 1675 took the title of duke of Lorraine and was recognized
by all the powers except France. After an unsuccessful attempt to seize

Lorraine in 1676, Charles vainly solicited the throne of Poland, took an
active part in the wars in Hungary, and married Eleanor of Austria, sister of
the emperor Leopold I., in 1678. At the treaty of Nijmwegen France
proposed to restore his estates on condition that he should abandon a part of
them; but Charles refused, and passed the rest of his life in Austria, where
he took part in the wars against the Turks, whom he defeated at Mohacz
(1687). He died in 1690.

Leopold, Charles’s son and successor, was restored to his estates by the
treaty of Ryswick (1697), but had to dismantle all the fortresses in Lorraine
and to disband his army with the exception of his guard. Under his rule
Lorraine flourished. While diminishing the taxes, he succeeded in
augmenting his revenues by wise economy. The population increased
enormously during his reign—that of Nancy, for instance, almost trebling
itself between the years 1699 and 1735. Leopold welcomed French
immigrants, and devoted himself to the development of commerce and
industry, particularly to the manufacture of stuffs and lace, glass and paper.
He was responsible, too, for the compilation of a body of law which was
known as the “Code Léopold.” Some time after his death, which occurred
on the 27th of March 1729, his heir Francis III. was betrothed to Maria
Theresa of Austria, the daughter and heiress of the emperor Charles VI.
France, however, could not admit the possibility of a union of Lorraine with
the Empire; and in 1735, at the preliminaries of Vienna, Louis XV.
negotiated an arrangement by which Francis received the duchy of Tuscany,
which was vacant by the death of the last Medici, in exchange for Lorraine,
and Stanislaus Leszczynski, the dethroned king of Poland and father-in-law
of Louis XV., obtained Lorraine, which after his death would pass to his
daughter—in other words, to France. These arrangements were confirmed
by the treaty of Vienna (18th of November 1738). In 1736, by a secret
agreement, Stanislaus had abandoned the financial administration of his
estates to Louis XV. for a yearly subsidy. The intendant, Chaumont de la

Galaizière, was instructed to apply the French system of taxation in
Lorraine; and in spite of the severity of the administration Lorraine
preserved a grateful memory of the good king Stanislaus, who held his
brilliant little court at Lunéville, and founded an academy and several
libraries and hospitals. At his death in February 1766 the two duchies of
Lorraine and Bar became definitively incorporated in the kingdom of
France. The treaties of 1735 and 1736, however, guaranteed their
legislation, the privileges enjoyed by the three orders, and their common
law and customs tariffs, which they retained until the French Revolution.
Lorraine and Barrois formed a large government corresponding, together
with the little government of the three bishoprics, to the intendance of
Lorraine and the généralité of Metz. For legal purposes, Metz had been the
seat of a parlement since 1633, and the parlement of Nancy was created in
1776. There was, too, a chambre des comptes at Metz, and another at Bar-
le-duc. (For the later history see Alsace-Lorraine.)

See Dom. A. Calmet, Histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Lorraine
(2nd ed., Nancy, 1747-1757); A. Digot, Histoire de Lorraine (1879-
1880); E. Huhn, Geschichte Lothringens (Berlin, 1877); R. Parisot, Le
Royaume de Lorraine sous les Carolingiens (Paris, 1899); Comte
D’Haussonville, Histoire de la réunion de la Lorraine à la France (2nd
ed., Paris, 1860); E. Bonvalot, Histoire du droit et des institutions de la
Lorraine et des Trois-Évêchés (Paris, 1895); and E. Duvernoy, Les
États Généraux des duchés de Lorraine et de Bar jusqu’à la majorité
de Charles III. (Paris, 1904).
(R. Po.)

LORTZING, GUSTAV ALBERT (1801-1851), German
composer, was born at Berlin on the 23rd of October 1801. Both his parents
were actors, and when he was nineteen the son began to play youthful lover
at the theatres of Düsseldorf and Aachen, sometimes also singing in small
tenor or baritone parts. His first opera Ali Pascha von Jannina appeared in
1824, but his fame as a musician rests chiefly upon the two operas Der
Wildschütz (1842) and Czar und Zimmermann (1837). The latter, although
now regarded as one of the masterpieces of German comic opera, was
received with little enthusiasm by the public of Leipzig. Subsequent
performance in Berlin, however, provoked such a tempest of applause that
the opera was soon placed on all the stages of Germany. It was translated
into English, French, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, Bohemian, Hungarian and
Russian. Der Wildschütz was based on a comedy of Kotzebue, and was a
satire on the unintelligent and exaggerated admiration for the highest beauty
in art expressed by the bourgeois gentilhomme. Of his other operas it is only
necessary to note Der Pole und sein Kind, produced shortly after the Polish
insurrection of 1831, and Undine (1845). Lortzing died at Berlin on the 21st
of January 1851.

LORY, CHARLES (1823-1889), French geologist, was born at
Nantes on the 30th of July 1823. He graduated D. ès Sc. in 1847; in 1852 he
was appointed to the chair of geology at the University of Grenoble, and in
1881 to that of the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. He was
distinguished for his researches on the geology of the French Alps, being
engaged on the geological survey of the departments of Isère, Drôme and
the Hautes Alpes, of which he prepared the maps and explanatory memoirs.
He dealt with some of the disturbances in the Savoy Alps, describing the
fan-like structures, and confirming the views of J. A. Favre with regard to
the overthrows, reversals and duplication of the strata. His contributions to
geological literature include also descriptions of the fossils and
stratigraphical divisions of the Lower Cretaceous and Jurassic rocks of the
Jura. He died at Grenoble on the 3rd of May 1889.

LORY (a word of Malayan origin signifying parrot, in general use
with but slight variation of form in many European languages), the name of
certain birds of the order Psittaci, mostly from the Moluccas and New

Guinea, remarkable for their bright scarlet or crimson colouring, though
also, and perhaps subsequently, applied to some others in which the
plumage is chiefly green. The lories have been referred to a considerable
number of genera, of which Lorius (the Domicella of some authors), Eos
and Chalcopsittacus may be here particularized, while under the name of
“lorikeets” may be comprehended such genera as Trichoglossus,
Charmosyna, Loriculus and Coriphilus. By most systematists some of these
forms have been placed far apart, even in different families of Psittaci, but
A. H. Garrod has shown (Proc. Zool. Society, 1874, pp. 586-598, and 1876,
p. 692) the many common characters they possess, which thus goes some
way to justify the relationship implied by their popular designation. A full
account of these birds is given in the first part of Count T. Salvadori’s
Ornitologia della Papuasia e delle Molucche (Turin 1880), whilst a later
classification appeared in Salvadori’s section of the British Museum
Catalogue of Birds, xx., 1891.

Though the name lory has often been used for the species of Eclectus,
and some other genera related thereto, modern writers would restrict its
application to the birds of the genera Lorius, Eos, Chalcopsittacus and their
near allies, which are often placed in a subfamily, Loriinae, belonging to the
so-called family of Trichoglossidae or “brush-tongued” parrots. Garrod in
his investigations on the anatomy of Psittaci was led not to attach much
importance to the structure indicated by the epithet “brush-tongued” stating
(Proc. Zool. Society, 1874, p. 597) that it “is only an excessive development
of the papillae which are always found on the lingual surface.” The birds of
this group are very characteristic of the New Guinea subregion,1 in which
occur, according to Count Salvadori, ten species of Lorius, eight of Eos and
four of Chalcopsittacus; but none seem here to require any further notice,2
though among them, and particularly in the genus Eos, are included some of
the most richly-coloured birds in the whole world; nor does it appear that
more need be said of the lorikeets.

The family is the subject of an excellent monograph by St George
Mivart (London, 1896).
(A. N.)

1 They extend, however, to Fiji, Tahiti and Fanning Island.

2 Unless it be Oreopsittacus arfaki, of New Guinea, remarkable as the only parrot
known as yet to have fourteen instead of twelve rectrices.

LOS ANDES, a former state of Venezuela under the redivision of
1881, which covered the extreme western part of the republic N. of Zamora
and S. of Zulia. In the redivision of 1904 Los Andes was cut up into three
states—Mérida Táchira and Trujillo.

LOS ANGELES, a city and the county-seat of Los Angeles
county, in southern California, U.S.A., along the small Los Angeles river, in
the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains; a narrow strip, 18 m. long, joins
the main part of the city to its water front on the ocean, San Pedro Bay. Pop.
(1880) 11,183, (1890) 50,395, (1900) 102,479, of whom 19,964 were

foreign-born;1 the growth in population since 1900 has been very rapid and
in 1910 it was 319,198. The city had in 1910 an area of 85.1 sq. m., of
which more than one-half has been added since 1890. Los Angeles is served
by the Southern Pacific, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé, and the San
Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake railways; by steamers to San Francisco;
and by five systems of urban and suburban electric railways, which have
300 m. of track within the city and 700 m. within a radius of 30 m. beyond
its limits. Inclined railways ascend Third Street Hill and Court Street Hill,
in the heart of the city; and a system of subways extends from the centre of
the city to its western limits. The harbour, San Pedro Bay, originally open
and naturally poor, has been greatly improved by the Federal government; a
breakwater 9250 ft. long was begun in 1898 and the bar has been deepened,
and further improvements of the inner harbour at Wilmington (which is
nearly landlocked by a long narrow island lying nearly east and west across
its mouth) were begun in 1907. Important municipal docks have been built
by the city.

The situation of the city between the mountains and the sea is attractive.
The site of the business district is level, and its plan regular; the suburbs are
laid out on hills. Although not specifically a health resort, Los Angeles
enjoys a high reputation for its climate. From July 1877 to 1908 (inclusive)
the mean of the minima for January, the coldest month of the year, was
44.16° F.; the mean of the minima for August, the warmest month, was
60.1° F.; and the difference of the mean temperature of the coldest and the
warmest month was about 18° F.; while on five days only in this period
(and on no day in the years 1904-1908) did the official thermometer fall
below 32° F. There are various pleasure resorts in the mountains, and
among seaside resorts are Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Playa del
Rey, Hermosa, Redondo, Terminal Island, Long Beach, Alamitos Bay,
Huntington Beach, Newport, Balboa and Corona del Mar. There are
excellent roads throughout the country. Los Angeles has beautiful shade

trees and a wealth of semi-tropic vegetation. Its residential portions are
characterized by detached homes set in ample and beautiful grounds.
Towering eucalyptus, graceful pepper trees, tropic palms, rubber trees, giant
bananas, yuccas and a wonderful growth of roses, heliotrope, calla lilies in
hedges, orange trees, jasmine, giant geraniums and other flowers beautify
the city throughout the year. There are 22 parks, with about 3800 acres
within or on the borders of the city limits; among the parks are Griffith
(3015 acres), Elysian (532 acres), Eastlake (57 acres), Westlake (35 acres)
and Echo (38 acres). The old Spanish-Moorish mission architecture has
considerably influenced building styles. Among the important buildings are
the Federal Building, the County Court House, the City Hall, a County Hall
of Records, the Public Library with about 110,000 volumes in 1908, the
large Auditorium and office buildings and the Woman’s Club. The exhibit in
the Chamber of Commerce Building illustrates the resources of southern
California. Here also are the Coronel Collection, given in 1901 by Dona
Mariana, the widow of Don Antonio Coronel, and containing relics of the
Spanish and Mexican régime in California; and the Palmer Collection of
Indian antiquities. In Los Angeles also are the collections of the Southwest
Society (1904; for southern California, Arizona and New Mexico) of the
Archaeological Institute of America. On the outskirts of the city, near
Eastlake Park, is the Indian Crafts Exhibition, which contains rare
collections of aboriginal handiwork, and where Indians may be seen making
baskets, pottery and blankets. Of interest to visitors is that part of the city
called Sonora Town, with its adobe houses, Mexican quarters, old Plaza and
the Church of Our Lady, Queen of the Angels (first erected in 1822; rebuilt
in 1861), which contains interesting paintings by early Indian converts.
Near Sonora Town is the district known as Chinatown. The principal
educational institutions are the University of Southern California
(Methodist Episcopal, 1880), the Maclay College of Theology and a
preparatory school; Occidental College (Presbyterian, 1887), St Vincent’s

College (Roman Catholic, founded 1865; chartered 1869) and the Los
Angeles State Normal School (1882).

The economic interests of Los Angeles centre in the culture of fruits.
The surrounding country is very fertile when irrigated, producing
oranges, lemons, figs and other semi-tropical fruits. Thousands of
artesian wells have been bored, the region between Los Angeles, Santa
Clara and San Bernardino being one of the most important artesian
well regions of the world. The city, which then got its water supply
from the Los Angeles river bed, in 1907 authorized the issue of
$23,000,000 worth of 4% bonds for the construction of an aqueduct
209 m. long, bringing water to the city from the Owens river, in the
Sierra Nevada Mountains. It was estimated that the project would
furnish water for one million people, beside supplying power for
lighting, manufacturing and transportation purposes. All the water in
excess of the city’s actual needs may be employed for irrigation. Work
on the aqueduct was begun in 1908, and it was to be completed in five
years. From 1900 to 1905 the value of the factory products increased
from $15,133,696 to $34,814,475 or 130%, and the capital employed in
manufactures from $10,045,095 to $28,181,418 or 180.5%. The
leading manufacturing industries in 1905, with the product-value of
each in this year, were slaughtering and meat-packing ($4,040,162),
foundry and machine shop work ($3,146,914), flour and grist milling
($2,798,740), lumber manufacturing and planing ($2,519,081), printing
and publishing (newspapers and periodicals, $2,097,339; and book and
job printing, $1,278,841), car construction and repairing ($1,549,836)
—in 1910 there were railway shops here of the Southern Pacific,
Pacific Electric, Los Angeles Street, Salt Lake and Santa Fé railways—
and the manufacture of confectionery ($953,915), furniture ($879,910)
and malt liquors ($789,393). The canning and preserving of fruits and
vegetables are important industries. There is a large wholesale trade

with southern California, with Arizona and with the gold-fields of
Nevada, with which Los Angeles is connected by railway. Los Angeles
is a port of entry, but its foreign commerce is relatively unimportant.
The value of its imports increased from $721,705 in 1905 to
$1,654,549 in 1907; in 1908 the value was $1,193,552. The city’s
exports were valued at $45,000 in 1907 and at $306,439 in 1908. The
coastwise trade is in lumber (about 700,000,000 ft. annually), shipped
from northern California, Oregon and Washington, and in crude oil and
general merchandise. There are rich oil-fields N. and W. of the city and
wells throughout the city; petroleum is largely employed as fuel in
factories. The central field, the Second Street Park field in the city, was
developed between 1892 and 1895 and wells were drilled farther E.
until in 1896 the eastern field was tapped with wells at Adobe and
College streets; the wells within the city are gradually being
abandoned. The western field and the western part of the central field
were first worked in 1899-1900. The Salt Lake field, controlled by the
Salt Lake Oil Company, near Rancho de Brea, W.S.W. of the city, first
became important in 1902 and in 1907 it was the most valuable field in
California, S. of Santa Barbara county, and the value of its product was
$1,749,980. In 1905 the value of petroleum refined in Los Angeles was
$461,281.

Land has not for many years been cheap (i.e. absolutely) in the
southern Californian fruit country, and immigration has been,
generally, of the comparatively well-to-do. This fact has greatly
affected the character and development of the city. The assessed
valuation of property increased more than threefold from 1900 to 1910,
being $276,801,517 in the latter year, when the bonded city debt was
$17,259,312.50. Since 1896 there has been a strong independent
movement in politics, marked by the organization of a League for
Better City Government (1896) and a Municipal League (1900), and by

the organization of postal primaries to secure the co-operation of
electors pledged to independent voting. Since 1904 the public school
system has been administered by a non-partisan Board of Education
chosen from the city at large, and not by wards as theretofore.

Los Angeles, like all other Californian cities, has the privilege of making
and amending its own charter, subject to the approval of the state
legislature. In 1902 thirteen amendments were adopted, including
provisions for the initiative, the referendum and the recall. The last of these
provides that 25% of the voters choosing a municipal officer may, by
signing a petition for his recall, force a new election during his term of
office and thereby remove him if another candidate receives a greater
number of votes. This provision, introducing an entirely new principle into
the American governmental system, came into effect in January 1903, and
was employed in the following year when a previously elected councilman
who was “recalled” by petition and was unsuccessful in the 1904 election
brought suit to hold his office, and on a mere technicality the Supreme
Court of the state declared the recall election invalid. In 1909 there was a
recall election at which a mayor was removed and another chosen in his
place.

The Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles was founded in
1781. The Franciscan mission of San Gabriel—still a famous landmark—
had been established ten years earlier a few miles eastward. Beginning
about 1827, Los Angeles, being the largest pueblo of the territory, became a
rival of Monterey for the honour of being the capital of California, was the
seat of conspiracies to overthrow the Mexican authority, and the stronghold
of the South California party in the bickerings and struggles that lasted
down to the American occupation. In 1835 it was made a city by the
Mexican Congress, and declared the capital, but the last provision was not
enforced and was soon recalled. In 1836-1838 it was the headquarters of C.

A. Carrillo, a legally-named but never de facto governor of California,
whose jurisdiction was never recognized in the north; and in 1845-1847 it
was the actual capital. The city was rent by factional quarrels when war
broke out between Mexico and the United States, but the appearance of
United States troops under Commodore Robert F. Stockton and General
John C. Frémont before Los Angeles caused both factions to unite against a
common foe. The defenders of Los Angeles fled at the approach of the
troops, and on the 13th of August 1846 the American flag was raised over
the city. A garrison of fifty men, left in control, was compelled in October to
withdraw on account of a revolt of the inhabitants, and Los Angeles was not
retaken until General Philip Kearny and Commodore Stockton entered the
city on the 18th of January 1847. This was the only important overt
resistance to the establishment of the new régime in California. The city
was chartered in 1850. It continued to grow steadily thereafter until it
attained railway connexion with the Central Pacific and San Francisco in
1876, and with the East by the Santa Fé system in 1885. The completion of
the latter line precipitated one of the most extraordinary of American
railway wars and land booms, which resulted in giving southern California
a great stimulus. The growth of the city since 1890 has been even more
remarkable. In 1909 the township of Wilmington (pop. in 1900, 2983),
including the city of San Pedro (pop. in 1900, 1787), Colegrove, a suburb
W.N.W. of the city, Cahuenga (pop. in 1900, 1586), a township N.W. of the
former city limits, and a part of Los Feliz were annexed to the city.

1 In addition to the large foreign-born population (4023 Germans, 3017 English, 2683
English Canadians, 1885 Chinese, 1720 Irish and smaller numbers of French, Mexicans,
Swedes, Italians, Scots, Swiss, Austrians, Danes, French Canadians, Russians, Norwegians,
Welsh and Japanese) 26,105 of the native white inhabitants were of foreign parentage (i.e.
had one or both parents not native born), so that only 54,121 white persons were of native
parentage. German, French and Italian weekly papers are published in Los Angeles.

LOS ISLANDS (Islas de los Idolos), a group of islands off the
coast of French Guinea, West Africa, lying south of Sangarea Bay, between
9° 25′ and 9° 31′ N. and 13° 46′ and 13° 51′ W., and about 80 m. N.N.W. of
Freetown, Sierra Leone. There are five principal islands: Tamara, Factory,
Crawford, White (or Ruma) and Coral. The two largest islands are Tamara
and Factory, Tamara, some 8 m. long by 1 to 2 m. broad, being the largest.
These two islands lie parallel to each other, Tamara to the west; they form a
sort of basin, in the centre of which is the islet of Crawford. The two other
islands are to the south. The archipelago is of volcanic formation, Tamara
and Factory islands forming part of a ruined crater, with Crawford Island as
the cone. The highest point is a knoll, some 450 ft. above sea-level, in
Tamara. All the islands are richly clothed with palm trees and flowering
underwood. Tamara has a good harbour, and contains the principal
settlement. The inhabitants, about 1500, are immigrants of the Baga tribe of
Senegambian negroes, whose home is the coast land between the Pongo and
Nunez rivers. These are chiefly farmers. The Church of England has a
flourishing mission, with a native pastorate. At one time the islands were a
great seat of slave-traders and pirates. The latter are supposed to have
buried large amounts of treasure in them. In an endeavour to stop the slave
trade and piracy, the islands were garrisoned (1812-1813) by British troops,
but the unhealthiness of the climate led to their withdrawal. In 1818 Sir
Charles McCarthy, governor of Sierra Leone, obtained the cession of the
islands to Great Britain from the chiefs of the Baga country, and in 1882

France recognized them to be a British possession. They were then the
headquarters of several Sierra Leone traders. By article 6 of the Anglo-
French convention of the 8th of April 1904, the islands were ceded to
France. They were desired by France because of their geographical position,
Konakry, the capital of French Guinea, being built on an islet but 3 m. from
Factory Island, and at the mercy of long range artillery planted thereon. The
islands derive their name from the sacred images found on them by the
early European navigators.

See A. B. Ellis, West African Islands (London, 1885), and the works
cited under French Guinea.

LOSSIEMOUTH, a police burgh of Elginshire, Scotland. Pop.
(1901) 3904. It embraces the villages of Lossiemouth, Branderburgh and
Stotfield, at the mouth of the Lossie, 5½ m. N.N.E. of Elgin, of which it is
the port, by a branch line of the Great North of Scotland railway. The
industries are boat-building and fishing. Lossiemouth, or the Old Town,
dates from 1700; Branderburgh, farther north, grew with the harbour and
began about 1830; Stotfield is purely modern and contiguous to the
splendid golf-course. The cliffs at Covesea, 2 m. W., contain caves of
curious shape. Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstown used one as a stable in
the rebellion of 1745; weapons of prehistoric man were found in another,
and the roof of a third is carved with ornaments and emblems of early
Celtic art.

Kinneddar Castle in the parish of Drainie—in which Lossiemouth is
situated—was a seat of the bishops of Moray, and Old Duffus Castle,
2½ m. S.W., was built in the reign of David II. The estate of
Gordonstown, close by, was founded by Sir Robert Gordon (1580-
1656), historian of the Sutherland family, and grandfather of the
baronet who, because of his inventions and scientific attainments, was
known locally as “Sir Robert the Warlock” (1647-1704). Nearly
midway between Lossiemouth and Elgin stand the massive ruins of the
palace of Spynie, formerly a fortified residence of the bishops of
Moray. “Davie’s Tower,” 60 ft. high with walls 9 ft. thick, was built by
Bishop David Stewart about 1470. The adjacent loch is a favourite
breeding-place for the sea-birds, which resort to the coast of Elginshire
in enormous numbers. A mile S.E. of the lake lies Pitgaveny, one of the
reputed scenes of the murder of King Duncan by Macbeth.

LOSSING, BENSON JOHN (1813-1891), American
historical writer, was born in Beekman, New York, on the 12th of February
1813. After editing newspapers in Poughkeepsie he became an engraver on
wood, and removed to New York in 1839 for the practice of his profession,
to which he added that of drawing illustrations for books and periodicals.
He likewise wrote or edited the text of numerous publications. His Pictorial
Field-Book of the Revolution (first issued in 30 parts, 1850-1852, and then
in 2 volumes) was a pioneer work of value in American historical literature.
In its preparation he travelled some 9000 m. during a period of nearly two

years; made more than a thousand sketches of extant buildings, battlefields,
&c.; and presented his material in a form serviceable to the topographer and
interesting to the general reader. Similar but less characteristic and less
valuable undertakings were a Pictorial Field-Book of the War of 1812
(1868), and a Pictorial History of the Civil War in the United States of
America (3 vols. 1866-1869). His other books were numerous: an Outline
History of the Fine Arts; many illustrated histories, large and small, of the
United States; popular descriptions of Mount Vernon and other localities
associated with famous names; and biographical sketches of celebrated
Americans, of which The Life and Times of Major-General Philip Schuyler
(2 vols. 1860-1873) was the most considerable. He died at Dover Plains,
New York, on the 3rd of June 1891.

LÖSSNITZ, a district in the kingdom of Saxony, extending for
about 5 m. along the right bank of the Elbe, immediately N.W. of Dresden.
Pop. (1905) 6929. A line of vine-clad hills shelters it from the north winds,
and so warm and healthy is the climate that it has gained for the district the
appellation of the “Saxon Nice.” Asparagus, peaches, apricots, strawberries,
grapes and roses are largely cultivated and find a ready market in Dresden.

LOST PROPERTY. The man who loses an article does not lose
his right thereto, and he may recover it from the holder whoever he be,
unless his claim be barred by some Statute of Limitations or special custom,
as sale in market overt. The rights and duties of the finder are more
complex. If he know or can find out the true owner, and yet convert the
article to his own use, he is guilty of theft. But if the true owner cannot be
discovered, the finder keeps the property, his title being superior to that of
every one except the true owner. But this is only if the find be in public or
some public place. Thus if you pick up bank notes in a shop where they
have been lost by a stranger, and hand them to the shopkeeper that he may
discover and repossess the true owner, and he fail to do so, then you can
recover them from him. The owner of private land, however, is entitled to
what is found on it. Thus a man sets you to clear out his pond, and you
discover a diamond in the mud at the bottom. The law will compel you to
hand it over to the owner of the pond. This applies even against the tenant.
A gas company were lessees of certain premises; whilst making excavations
therein they came upon a prehistoric boat; and they were forced to
surrender it to their lessor. An aerolite becomes the property of the owner of
the land on which it falls, and not of the person finding or digging it out.
The principle of these three last cases is that whatever becomes part of the
soil belongs to the proprietor of that soil.

Property lost at sea is regulated by different rules. Those who recover
abandoned vessels are entitled to salvage. Property absolutely lost upon the

high seas would seem to belong to the finder. It has been claimed for the
crown, and the American courts have held, that apart from a decree the
finder is only entitled to salvage rights, the court retaining the rest, and thus
practically taking it for the state on the original owner not being found. The
modern English law on the subject of wreck (including everything found on
the shore of the sea or tidal river) is contained in the Merchant Shipping Act
1894. The finder must forthwith make known his discovery to the receiver
of wreck under a penalty. He is entitled to a salvage reward, but the
property belongs to the crown or its grantee unless the true owner claims
within a year. In the United States unclaimed wreck after a year generally
becomes the property of the state. In Scotland the right to lost property is
theoretically in the crown, but the finder would not in practice be interfered
with except under the provisions of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892.
Section 412 requires all persons finding goods to deliver them forthwith to
the police under a penalty. If the true owner is not discovered within six
months the magistrates may hand them over to the finder. If the owner
appears he must pay a reasonable reward. Domestic animals, including
swans, found straying without an owner may be seized by the crown or lord
of the manor, and if not claimed within a year and a day they become the
property of the crown or the lord, on the observance of certain formalities.
In Scotland they were held to belong to the crown or its donatory, usually
the sheriff of a county. By the Burgh Police Act above quoted provision is
made for the sale of lost animals and the disposal of the free proceeds for
the purposes of the act unless such be claimed. In the United States there is
diversity of law and custom. Apart from special rule, lost animals become
the property of the finder, but in many cases the proceeds of their sale are
applied to public purposes. When property is lost by carriers, innkeepers or
railway companies, special provisions as to their respective responsibilities
apply. As to finds of money or the precious metals, see Treasure Trove.

LOSTWITHIEL, a market town and municipal borough in the
Bodmin parliamentary division of Cornwall, England, 30½ m. W. of
Plymouth by the Great Western railway. Pop. (1901) 1379. It is pleasantly
situated on the banks of the river Fowey. The church of St Bartholomew is
remarkable for a fine Early English tower surmounted by a Decorated spire;
there are also beautiful Decorated windows and details in the body of the
church, and a richly carved octagonal font. A bridge of the 14th century
crosses the river. The shire hall includes remains of a building, called the
Stannary prison, dating from the 13th century. The Great Western railway
has workshops at Lostwithiel.

Lostwithiel owed its ancient liberties—probably its existence—to the
neighbouring castle of Restormel. The Pipe Rolls (1194-1203) show that
Robert de Cardinan, lord of Restormel, paid ten marks yearly for having a
market at Lostwithiel. By an undated charter still preserved with the
corporation’s muniments he surrendered to the burgesses all the liberties
given them by his predecessors (antecessores) when they founded the town.
These included hereditary succession to tenements, exemption from sullage,
the right to elect a reeve (praepositus) if the grantor thought one necessary
and the right to marry without the lord’s interference. By Isolda,
granddaughter of Robert de Cardinan, the town was given to Richard, king
of the Romans, who in the third year of his reign granted to the burgesses a
gild merchant sac and soc, toll, team and infangenethef, freedom from
pontage, lastage, &c., throughout Cornwall, and exemption from the

jurisdiction of the hundred and county courts, also a yearly fair and a
weekly market. Richard transferred the assizes from Launceston to
Lostwithiel. His son Edmund, earl of Cornwall, built a great hall at
Lostwithiel and decreed that the coinage of tin should be at Lostwithiel
only. In 1325 Richard’s charter was confirmed and the market ordered to be
held on Thursdays. In 1386 the assizes were transferred back to Launceston.
In 1609 a charter of incorporation provided for a mayor, recorder, six
capital burgesses and seventeen assistants and courts of record and pie
powder. The boundaries of the borough were extended in 1733. Under the
reformed charter granted in 1885 the corporation consists of a mayor, four
aldermen and twelve councillors. From 1305 to 1832 two members
represented Lostwithiel in parliament. The electors after 1609 were the
twenty-five members of the corporation. Under the Reform Act (1832) the
borough became merged in the county. For the Thursday market granted in
1326 a Friday market was substituted in 1733, and this continues to be held.
The fair granted in 1326 and the three fairs granted in 1733 have all given
place to others. The archdeacon’s court, the sessions and the county
elections were long held at Lostwithiel, but all have now been removed. For
the victory gained by Charles I. over the earl of Essex in 1644, see Great
Rebellion.

LOT, in the Bible, the legendary ancestor of the two Palestinian
peoples, Moab and Ammon (Gen. xix. 30-38; cp. Ps. lxxxiii. 8); he appears
to have been represented as a Horite or Edomite (cp. the name Lotan, Gen.

xxxvi. 20, 22). As the son of Haran and grandson of Terah, he was
Abraham’s nephew (Gen. xi. 31), and he accompanied his uncle in his
migration from Haran to Canaan. Near Bethel1 Lot separated from
Abraham, owing to disputes between their shepherds, and being offered the
first choice, chose the rich fields of the Jordan valley which were as fertile
and well irrigated as the “garden of Yahweh” (i.e. Eden, Gen. xiii. 7 sqq.). It
was in this district that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were situated. He
was saved from their fate by two divine messengers who spent the night in
his house, and next morning led Lot, his wife, and his two unmarried
daughters out of the city. His wife looked back and was changed to a pillar
of salt,2 but Lot with his two daughters escaped first to Zoar and then to the
mountains east of the Dead Sea, where the daughters planned and executed
an incest by which they became the mothers of Moab and Ben-Ammi (i.e.
Ammon; Gen. xix.). The account of Chedorlaomer’s invasion and of Lot’s
rescue by Abraham belongs to an independent source (Gen. xiv.), the age
and historical value of which has been much disputed. (See further
Abraham; Melchizedek.) Lot’s character is made to stand in strong contrast
with that of Abraham, notably in the representation of his selfishness (xiii. 5
sqq.), and reluctance to leave the sinful city (xix. 16 sqq.); relatively,
however, he was superior to the rest (with the crude story of his insistence
upon the inviolable rights of guests, xix. 5 sqq.; cf. Judges xix. 22 sqq.), and
is regarded in 2 Pet. ii. 7 seq. as a type of righteousness.

Lot and his daughters passed into Arabic tradition from the Jews.
The daughters are named Zahy and Ra’wa by Mas’ūdī ii. 139; but other
Arabian writers give other forms. Paton (Syria and Palestine, pp. 43,
123) identifies Lot-Lotan with Ruten, one of the Egyptian names for
Palestine; its true meaning is obscure. For traces of mythical elements
in the story see Winckler, Altorient. Forsch. ii. 87 seq. See further, J.
Skinner, Genesis, pp. 310 sqq.
(S. A. C.)

1 The district is thus regarded as the place where the Hebrews, on the one side, and the
Moabites and Ammonites, on the other, commence their independent history. Whilst the
latter settle across the Jordan, Abraham moves down south to Hebron.

2 Tradition points to the Jebel Usdum (cp. the name Sodom) at the S.W. end of the
Dead Sea. It consists almost entirely of pure crystallized salt with pillars and pinnacles
such as might have given rise to the story (see Driver, Genesis, p. 201; and cf. also
Palestine Explor. Fund, Quart. Statements, 1871, p. 16, 1885, p. 20; Conder, Syrian Stone-
lore, p. 279 seq.). Jesus cites the story of Lot and his wife to illustrate the sudden coming of
the Kingdom of God (Luke xvii. 28-32). The history of the interpretation of the legend by
the early and medieval church down to the era of rational and scientific investigation will
be found in A. D. White, Warfare of Science with Theology, ii. ch. xviii.

LOT (Lat. Oltis), a river of southern France flowing westward across
the central plateau, through the departments of Lozère, Aveyron, Lot and
Lot-et-Garonne. Its length is about 300 m., the area of its basin 4444 sq. m.
The river rises in the Cévennes on the Mont du Goulet at a height of 4918
ft. about 15 m. E. of Mende, past which it flows. Its upper course lies
through gorges between the Causse of Mende and Aubrac Mountains on the
north and the tablelands (causses) of Sauveterre, Severac and Comtal on the
south. Thence its sinuous course crosses the plateau of Quercy and entering
a wider fertile plain flows into the Garonne at Aiguillon between Agen and
Marmande. Its largest tributary, the Truyère, rises in the Margeride
mountains and after a circuitous course joins it on the right at Entraygues
(department of Aveyron), its affluence more than doubling the volume of
the river. Lower down it receives the Dourdou de Bozouls (or du Nord) on
the left and on the right the Célé above Cahors (department of Lot), which

is situated on a peninsula skirted by one of the river’s many windings.
Villeneuve-sur-Lot (department of Lot-et-Garonne) is the only town of any
importance between this point and its mouth. The Lot is canalized between
Bouquiès, above which there is no navigation, and the Garonne (160 m.).

LOT, a department of south-western France, formed in 1790 from the
district of Quercy, part of the old province of Guyenne. It is bounded N. by
Corrèze, W. by Dordogne and Lot-et-Garonne, S. by Tarn-et-Garonne, and
E. by Aveyron and Cantal. Area 2017 sq. m. Pop. (1906) 216,611. The
department extends over the western portion of the Massif Central of
France; it slopes towards the south-west, and has a maximum altitude of
2560 ft. on the borders of Cantal with a minimum of 213 ft. at the point
where the river Lot quits the department. The Lot, which traverses it from
east to west, is navigable for the whole distance (106 m.) with the help of
locks; its principal tributary within the department is the Célé (on the right).
In the north of the department the Dordogne has a course of 37 m.; among
its tributaries are the Cère, which has its rise in Cantal, and the Ouysse, a
river of no great length, but remarkable for the abundance of its waters. The
streams in the south of Lot all flow into the Tarn. The eastern and western
portions of the department are covered by ranges of hills; the north, the
centre, and part of the south are occupied by a belt of limestone plateaus or
causses, that to the north of the Dordogne is called the Causse de Martel;
between the Dordogne and the Lot is the Causse de Gramat or de
Rocamadour; south of the Lot is the Causse de Cahors. The causses are for

the most part bare and arid owing to the rapid disappearance of the rain in
clefts and chasms in the limestone, which are known as igues. These are
most numerous in the Causse de Gramat and are sometimes of great beauty;
the best known is the Gouffre de Padirac, 7 m. N.E. of Rocamadour. The
altitude of the causses (from 700 to 1300 ft., much lower than that of the
similar plateaus in Lozère, Hérault and Aveyron) permits the cultivation of
the vine; they also yield a small quantity of cereals and potatoes and some
wood. The deep intervening valleys are full of verdure, being well watered
by abundant springs. The climate is on the whole that of the Girondine
region; the valleys are warm, and the rainfall is somewhat above the
average for France. The difference of temperature between the higher parts
of the department belonging to the central plateau and the sheltered valleys
of the south-west is considerable. Wheat, maize, oats and rye are the chief
cereals. Wine is the principal product, the most valued being that of Cahors
grown in the valley of the Lot, which is, in general, the most productive
portion of the department. It is used partly for blending with other wines
and partly for local consumption. The north-east cantons produce large
quantities of chestnuts; walnuts, apples and plums are common, and the
department also grows potatoes and tobacco and supplies truffles. Sheep are
the most abundant kind of live stock; but pigs, horned cattle, horses, asses,
mules and goats are also reared, as well as poultry and bees. Iron and coal
are mined, and there are important zinc deposits (Planioles). Limestone is
quarried. There are oil-works and numerous mills, and wool spinning and
carding as well as cloth making, tanning, currying, brewing and the making
of agricultural implements are carried on to some extent. The three
arrondissements are those of Cahors, the capital, Figeac and Gourdon; there
are 29 cantons and 329 communes.

Lot belongs to the 17th military district, and to the académie of Toulouse,
and falls within the circumscription of the court of appeal at Agen, and the
province of the archbishop of Albi. It is served by the Orleans railway.

Cahors, Figeac and Rocamadour are the principal places. Of the interesting
churches and châteaux of the department, may be mentioned the fine feudal
fortress at Castelnau occupying a commanding natural position, with an
audience hall of the 12th century, and the Romanesque abbey-church at
Souillac with fine sculpturing on the principal entrance. The plateau of Puy
d’Issolu, near Vayrac, is believed by most authorities to be the site of the
ancient Uxcellodunum, the scene of the last stand of the Gauls against
Julius Caesar in 51 b.c. Lot has many dolmens, the finest being that of
Pierre Martine, near Livernon (arr. of Figeac).

LOT-ET-GARONNE, a department of south-western France,
formed in 1790 of Agenais and Bazadais, two districts of the old province
of Guienne, and of Condomois, Lomagne, Brullois and pays d’Albret,
formerly portions of Gascony. It is bounded W. by Gironde, N. by
Dordogne, E. by Lot and Tarn-et-Garonne, S. by Gers and S.W. by Landes.
Area 2079 sq. m. Pop. (1906) 274,610. The Garonne, which traverses the
department from S.E. to N.W., divides it into two unequal parts. That to the
north is a country of hills and deep ravines, and the slope is from east to
west, while in the region to the south, which is a continuation of the plateau
of Lannemezan and Armagnac, the slope is directly from south to north. A
small portion in the south-west belongs to the sterile region of the Landes
(q.v.); the broad valleys of the Garonne and of its affluent the Lot are
proverbial for their fertility. The wildest part is towards the north-east on
the borders of Dordogne, where a region of causses (limestone plateaus)

and forests begins; the highest point (896 ft.) is also found here. The
Garonne, where it quits the department, is only some 20 ft. above the sea-
level; it is navigable throughout, with the help of its lateral canal, as also are
the Lot and Baise with the help of locks. The Drot, a right affluent of the
Garonne in the north of the department, is also navigable in the lower part
of its course. The climate is that of the Girondine region—mild and fine—
the mean temperature of Agen being 56.6° Fahr., or 5° above that of Paris;
the annual rainfall, which, in the plain of Agen, varies from 20 to 24 in., is
nearly the least in France. Agriculturally the department is one of the
richest. Of cereals wheat is the chief, maize and oats coming next. Potatoes,
vines and tobacco are important sources of wealth. The best wines are those
of Clairac and Buzet. Vegetable and fruit-growing are prosperous. Plum-
trees (pruniers d’ente) are much cultivated in the valleys of the Garonne
and Lot, and the apricots of Nicole and Tonneins are well known. The chief
trees are the pine and the oak; the cork-oak flourishes in the Landes, and
poplars and willows are abundant on the borders of the Garonne. Horned
cattle, chiefly of the Garonne breed, are the principal live stock. Poultry and
pigs are also reared profitably. There are deposits of iron in the department.
The forges, blast furnaces and foundries of Fumel are important; and
agricultural implements and other machines are manufactured. The making
of lime and cement, of tiles, bricks and pottery, of confectionery and dried
plums (pruneaux d’Agen) and other delicacies, and brewing and distilling,
occupy many of the inhabitants. At Tonneins (pop. 4691 in 1906) there is a
national tobacco manufactory. Cork cutting, of which the centre is Mézin,
hat and candle making, wool spinning, weaving of woollen and cotton
stuffs, tanning, paper-making, oil-making, dyeing and flour and saw-milling
are other prominent industries. The peasants still speak the Gascon patois.
The arrondissements are 4—Agen, Marmande, Nérac and Villeneuve-sur-
Lot—and there are 35 cantons and 326 communes.

Agen, the capital, is the seat of a bishopric and of the court of appeal for
the department of Lot-et-Garonne. The department belongs to the region of
the XVII. army corps, the académie of Bordeaux, and the province of the
archbishop of Bordeaux. Lot-et-Garonne is served by the lines of the
Southern and the Orleans railways, its rivers afford about 160 m. of
navigable waterway, and the lateral canal of the Garonne traverses it for 54
m. Agen, Marmande, Nérac and Villeneuve-sur-Lot, the principal places,
are treated under separate headings. The department possesses Roman
remains at Mas d’Agenais and at Aiguillon. The churches of Layrac,
Monsempron, Mas d’Agenais, Moirax, Mézin and Vianne are of interest, as
also are the fortifications of Vianne of the 13th century, and the châteaux of
Xaintrailles, Bonaguil, Gavaudun and of the industrial town of
Casteljaloux.

LOTHAIR I. (795-855), Roman emperor, was the eldest son of the
emperor Louis I., and his wife Irmengarde. Little is known of his early life,
which was probably passed at the court of his grandfather Charlemagne,
until 815 when he became ruler of Bavaria. When Louis in 817 divided the
Empire between his sons, Lothair was crowned joint emperor at Aix-la-
Chapelle and given a certain superiority over his brothers. In 821 he
married Irmengarde (d. 851), daughter of Hugo, count of Tours; in 822
undertook the government of Italy; and, on the 5th of April 823, was
crowned emperor by Pope Paschal I. at Rome. In November 824 he
promulgated a statute concerning the relations of pope and emperor which

reserved the supreme power to the secular potentate, and he afterwards
issued various ordinances for the good government of Italy. On his return to
his father’s court his stepmother Judith won his consent to her plan for
securing a kingdom for her son Charles, a scheme which was carried out in
829. Lothair, however, soon changed his attitude, and spent the succeeding
decade in constant strife over the division of the Empire with his father. He
was alternately master of the Empire, and banished and confined to Italy; at
one time taking up arms in alliance with his brothers and at another fighting
against them; whilst the bounds of his appointed kingdom were in turn
extended and reduced. When Louis was dying in 840, he sent the imperial
insignia to Lothair, who, disregarding the various partitions, claimed the
whole of the Empire. Negotiations with his brother Louis and his half-
brother Charles, both of whom armed to resist this claim, were followed by
an alliance of the younger brothers against Lothair. A decisive battle was
fought at Fontenoy on the 25th of June 841, when, in spite of his personal
gallantry, Lothair was defeated and fled to Aix. With fresh troops he entered
upon a war of plunder, but the forces of his brothers were too strong for
him, and taking with him such treasure as he could collect, he abandoned to
them his capital. Efforts to make peace were begun, and in June 842 the
brothers met on an island in the Sâone, and agreed to an arrangement which
developed, after much difficulty and delay, into the treaty of Verdun signed
in August 843. By this Lothair received Italy and the imperial title, together
with a stretch of land between the North and Mediterranean Seas lying
along the valleys of the Rhine and the Rhone. He soon abandoned Italy to
his eldest son, Louis, and remained in his new kingdom, engaged in
alternate quarrels and reconciliations with his brothers, and in futile efforts
to defend his lands from the attacks of the Normans and the Saracens. In
855 he became seriously ill, and despairing of recovery renounced the
throne, divided his lands between his three sons, and on the 23rd of
September entered the monastery of Prüm, where he died six days later. He

was buried at Prüm, where his remains were found in 1860. Lothair was
entirely untrustworthy and quite unable to maintain either the unity or the
dignity of the empire of Charlemagne.

See “Annales Fuldenses”; Nithard, “Historiarum Libri,” both in the
Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores, Bände i. and ii. (Hanover
and Berlin, 1826 fol.); E. Mühlbacher, Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs
unter den Karolingern (Innsbruck, 1881); E. Dümmler, Geschichte des
ostfränkischen Reichs (Leipzig, 1887-1888); B. Simson, Jahrbücher
des deutschen Reiches unter Ludwig dem Frommen (Leipzig, 1874-
1876).

LOTHAIR II. or III. (c. 1070-1137), surnamed the “Saxon,”
Roman emperor, son of Gebhard, count of Supplinburg, belonged to a
family possessing extensive lands around Helmstadt in Saxony, to which he
succeeded on his father’s death in 1075. Gebhard had been a leading
opponent of the emperor Henry IV. in Saxony, and his son, taking the same
attitude, assisted Egbert II., margrave of Meissen, in the rising of 1088. The
position and influence of Lothair in Saxony, already considerable, was
increased when in 1100 he married Richenza, daughter of Henry, count of
Nordheim, who became an heiress on her father’s death in 1101, and
inherited other estates when her brother Otto died childless in 1116. Having
assisted the German king, Henry V., against his father in 1104, Lothair was
appointed duke of Saxony by Henry, when Duke Magnus, the last of the

Billungs, died in 1106. His first care was to establish his authority over
some districts east of the Elbe; and quickly making himself independent of
the king, he stood forth as the representative of the Saxon race. This attitude
brought him into collision with Henry V., to whom, however, he was forced
to submit after an unsuccessful rising in 1112. A second rising was caused
when, on the death of Ulrich II., count of Weimar and Orlamünde, without
issue in 1112, Henry seized these counties as vacant fiefs of the empire,
while Lothair supported the claim of Siegfried, count of Ballenstädt, whose
mother was a relative of Ulrich. The rebels were defeated, and Siegfried
was killed at Warnstädt in 1113, but his son secured possession of the
disputed counties. After the defeat by Lothair of Henry’s forces at
Welfesholz on the 11th of February 1115, events called Henry to Italy; and
Lothair appears to have been undisturbed in Saxony until 1123, when the
death of Henry II., margrave of Meissen and Lusatia raised a dispute as to
the right of appointment to the vacant margraviates. A struggle ensued, in
which victory remained with the duke. The Saxony policy of Lothair during
these years had been to make himself independent, and to extend his
authority; to this end he allied himself with the papal party, and easily
revived the traditional hostility of the Saxons to the Franconian emperors.

When Henry V. died in 1125, Lothair, after a protracted election, was
chosen German king at Mainz on the 30th of August 1125. His election was
largely owing to the efforts of Adalbert, archbishop of Mainz, and the papal
party, who disliked the candidature of Henry’s nephew and heir, Frederick
II. of Hohenstaufen, duke of Swabia. The new king was crowned at Aix-la-
Chapelle on the 13th of September 1125. Before suffering a severe reverse,
brought about by his interference in the internal affairs of Bohemia, Lothair
requested Frederick of Hohenstaufen to restore to the crown the estates
bequeathed to him by the emperor Henry V. Frederick refused, and was
placed under the ban. Lothair, unable to capture Nüremberg, gained the
support of Henry the Proud, the new duke of Bavaria, by giving him his

daughter, Gertrude, in marriage, and that of Conrad, count of Zähringen, by
granting him the administration of the kingdom of Burgundy, or Arles. As a
counterstroke, however, Conrad of Hohenstaufen, the brother of Frederick,
was chosen German king in December 1127, and was quickly recognized in
northern Italy. But Lothair gained the upper hand in Germany, and by the
end of 1129 the Hohenstaufen strongholds, Nüremberg and Spires, were in
his possession. This struggle was accompanied by disturbances in Lorraine,
Saxony and Thuringia, but order was soon restored after the resistance of
the Hohenstaufen had been beaten down. In 1131 the king led an expedition
into Denmark, where one of his vassals had been murdered by Magnus, son
of the Danish king, Niels, and where general confusion reigned; but no
resistance was offered, and Niels promised to pay tribute to Lothair.

The king’s attention at the time was called to Italy where two popes,
Innocent II. and Anacletus II., were clamouring for his support. At first
Lothair, fully occupied with the affairs of Germany, remained heedless and
neutral; but in March 1131 he was visited at Liége by Innocent, to whom he
promised his assistance. Crossing the Alps with a small army in September
1132, he reached Rome in March 1133, accompanied by Innocent. As St
Peter’s was held by Anacletus, Lothair’s coronation as emperor took place
on the 4th of June 1133 in the church of the Lateran. He then received as
papal fiefs the vast estates of Matilda, marchioness of Tuscany, thus
securing for his daughter and her Welf husband lands which might
otherwise have passed to the Hohenstaufen. His efforts to continue the
investiture controversy were not very serious. He returned to Germany,
where he restored order in Bavaria, and made an expedition against some
rebels in the regions of the lower Rhine. Resuming the struggle against the
Hohenstaufen, Lothair soon obtained the submission of the brothers, who
retained their lands, and a general peace was sworn at Bamberg. The
emperor’s authority was now generally recognized, and the annalists speak
highly of the peace and order of his later years. In 1135, Eric II., king of

Denmark, acknowledged himself a vassal of Lothair; Boleslaus III., prince
of the Poles, promised tribute and received Pomerania and Rügen as
German fiefs; while the eastern emperor, John Comnenus, implored
Lothair’s aid against Roger II. of Sicily.

The emperor seconded the efforts of his vassals, Albert the Bear,
margrave of the Saxon north mark, and Conrad I., margrave of Meissen and
Lusatia, to extend the authority of the Germans in the districts east of the
Elbe, and assisted Norbert, archbishop of Magdeburg, and Albert I.,
archbishop of Bremen, to spread Christianity. In August 1136, attended by a
large army, Lothair set out upon his second Italian journey. The Lombard
cities were either terrified into submission or taken by storm; Roger II. was
driven from Apulia; and the imperial power enforced over the whole of
southern Italy. A mutiny among the German soldiers and a breach with
Innocent concerning the overlordship of Apulia compelled the emperor to
retrace his steps. An arrangement was made with regard to Apulia, after
which Lothair, returning to Germany, died at Breitenwang, a village in the
Tirol, on the 3rd or 4th of December 1137. His body was carried to Saxony
and buried in the monastery which he had founded at Königslutter. Lothair
was a strong and capable ruler, who has been described as the “imitator and
heir of the first Otto.” Contemporaries praise his justice and his virtue, and
his reign was regarded, especially by Saxons and churchmen, as a golden
age for Germany.

The main authorities for the life and reign of Lothair are: “Vita
Norberti archiepiscopi Magdeburgensis”; Otto von Freising,
“Chronicon Annalista Saxo” and “Narratio de electione Lotharii” all in
the Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores, Bände vi., xii. and
xx. (Hanover and Berlin, 1826-1892). The best modern works are: L.
von Ranke, Weltgeschichte, pt. viii. (Leipzig, 1887-1888); W. von
Giesebrecht, Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiserzeit, Band iv.
(Brunswick, 1877), Band v. (Leipzig, 1888); Ph. Jaffe, Geschichte des
Deutschen Reiches unter Lothar (Berlin, 1843); W. Bernhardi, Lothar
von Supplinburg (Leipzig, 1879); O. von Heinemann, Lothar der
Sachse und Konrad III. (Halle, 1869); and Ch. Volkmar, “Das
Vërhältniss Lothars III. zur Investiturfrage,” in the Forschungen zur
Deutschen Geschichte, Band xxvi. (Göttingen, 1862-1886).

LOTHAIR (941-986), king of France, son of Louis IV., succeeded
his father in 954, and was at first under the guardianship of Hugh the Great,
duke of the Franks, and then under that of his maternal uncle Bruno,
archbishop of Cologne. The beginning of his reign was occupied with wars
against the vassals, particularly against the duke of Normandy. Lothair then
seems to have conceived the design of recovering Lorraine. He attempted to
precipitate matters by a sudden attack, and in the spring of 978 nearly
captured the emperor Otto II. at Aix-la-Chapelle. Otto took his revenge in
the autumn by invading France. He penetrated as far as Paris, devastating

the country through which he passed, but failed to take the town, and was
forced to retreat with heavy loss. Peace was concluded in 980 at Margut-
sur-Chiers, and in 983 Lothair was even chosen guardian to the young Otto
III. Towards 980, however, Lothair quarrelled with Hugh the Great’s son,
Hugh Capet, who, at the instigation of Adalberon, archbishop of Reims,
became reconciled with Otto III. Lothair died on the 2nd of March 986. By
his wife Emma, daughter of Lothair, king of Italy, he left a son who
succeeded him as Louis V.

See F. Lot, Les Derniers Carolingiens (Paris, 1891); and the Recueil
des actes de Lothaire et de Louis V., edited by L. Halphen and F. Lot
(1908).

LOTHAIR (825-869), king of the district called after him
Lotharingia, or Lorraine, was the second son of the emperor Lothair I. On
his father’s death in 855, he received for his kingdom a district lying west
of the Rhine, between the North Sea and the Jura mountains, which was
called Regnum Lotharii and early in the 10th century became known as
Lotharingia or Lorraine. On the death of his brother Charles in 863 he
added some lands south of the Jura to this inheritance, but, except for a few
feeble expeditions against the Danish pirates, he seems to have done little
for its government or its defence. The reign was chiefly occupied by efforts
on the part of Lothair to obtain a divorce from his wife Teutberga, a sister of
Hucbert, abbot of St Maurice (d. 864); and his relations with his uncles,

Charles the Bald and Louis the German, were influenced by his desire to
obtain their support to this plan. Although quarrels and reconciliations
between the three kings followed each other in quick succession, in general
it may be said that Louis favoured the divorce, and Charles opposed it,
while neither lost sight of the fact that Lothair was without male issue.
Lothair, whose desire for the divorce was prompted by his affection for a
certain Waldrada, put away Teutberga; but Hucbert took up arms on her
behalf, and after she had submitted successfully to the ordeal of water,
Lothair was compelled to restore her in 858. Still pursuing his purpose, he
won the support of his brother, the emperor Louis II., by a cession of lands,
and obtained the consent of the local clergy to the divorce and to his
marriage with Waldrada, which was celebrated in 862. A synod of Frankish
bishops met at Metz in 863 and confirmed this decision, but Teutberga fled
to the court of Charles the Bald, and Pope Nicholas I. declared against the
decision of the synod. An attack on Rome by the emperor was without
result, and in 865 Lothair, convinced that Louis and Charles at their recent
meeting had discussed the partition of his kingdom, and threatened with
excommunication, again took back his wife. Teutberga, however, either
from inclination or compulsion, now expressed her desire for a divorce, and
Lothair went to Italy to obtain the assent of the new pope Adrian II. Placing
a favourable interpretation upon the words of the pope, he had set out on the
return journey, when he was seized with fever and died at Piacenza on the
8th of August 869. He left, by Waldrada, a son Hugo who was declared
illegitimate, and his kingdom was divided between Charles the Bald and
Louis the German.

See Hincmar, “Opusculum de divortio Lotharii regis et Tetbergae
reginae,” in Cursus completus patrologiae, tome cxxv., edited by J. P.
Migne (Paris, 1857-1879); M. Sdralek, Hinkmars von Rheims
Kanonistisches Gutachten über die Ehescheidung des Königs Lothar II.
(Freiburg, 1881); E. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches

(Leipzig, 1887-1888); and E. Mühlbacher, Die Regenten des
Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern (Innsbruck, 1881).

LOTHIAN, EARLS AND MARQUESSES OF.
Mark Kerr, 1st earl of Lothian (d. 1609), was the eldest son of Mark Kerr
(d. 1584), abbot, and then commendator, of Newbattle, or Newbottle, and
was a member of the famous border family of Ker of Cessford. The earls
and dukes of Roxburghe, who are also descended from the Kers of
Cessford, have adopted the spelling Ker, while the earls and marquesses of
Lothian have taken the form Kerr. Like his father, the abbot of Newbattle,
Mark Kerr was an extraordinary lord of session under the Scottish king
James VI.; he became Lord Newbattle in 1587 and was created earl of
Lothian in 1606. He was master of inquests from 1577 to 1606, and he died
on the 8th of April 1609, having had, as report says, thirty-one children by
his wife, Margaret (d. 1617), daughter of John Maxwell, 4th Lord Herries.
His son Robert, the 2nd earl, died without sons in July 1624. He had, in
1621, obtained a charter from the king enabling his daughter Anne to
succeed to his estates provided that she married a member of the family of
Ker. Consequently in 1631 she married William Ker, son of Robert, 1st earl
of Ancrum (1578-1654), a member of the family of Ker of Ferniehurst,
whose father, William Ker, had been killed in 1590 by Robert Ker,
afterwards 1st earl of Roxburghe. Robert was in attendance upon Charles I.
both before and after he came to the throne, and was created earl of Ancrum
in 1633. He was a writer and a man of culture, and among his friends were

the poet Donne and Drummond of Hawthornden. His elder son William was
created earl of Lothian in 1631, the year of his marriage with Anne Kerr,
and Sir William Kerr of Blackhope, a brother of the 2nd earl, who had taken
the title of earl of Lothian in 1624, was forbidden to use it (see
Correspondence of Sir Robert Ker, earl of Ancrum, and his son William,
third earl of Lothian, 1875).

William Ker (c. 1605-1675), who thus became 3rd earl of Lothian,
signed the Scottish national covenant in 1638 and marched with the Scots
into England in 1640, being present when the English were routed at
Newburn, after which he became governor of Newcastle-on-Tyne. During
the Civil War he was prominent rather as a politician than as a soldier; he
became a Scottish secretary of state in 1649, and was one of the
commissioners who visited Charles II. at Breda in 1650. He died at
Newbattle Abbey, near Edinburgh, in October 1675. William’s eldest son
Robert, the 4th earl (1636-1703), supported the Revolution of 1688 and
served William III. in several capacities; he became 3rd earl of Ancrum on
the death of his uncle Charles in 1690, and was created marquess of Lothian
in 1701. His eldest son William, the 2nd marquess (c. 1662-1722), who had
been a Scottish peer as Lord Jedburgh since 1692, was a supporter of the
union with England. His son William, the 3rd marquess (c. 1690-1767), was
the father of William Henry, the 4th marquess, who was wounded at
Fontenoy and was present at Culloden. He was a member of parliament for
some years and had reached the rank of general in the army when he died at
Bath on the 12th of April 1775. His grandson William, the 6th marquess
(1763-1824), married Henrietta (1762-1805), daughter and heiress of John
Hobart, 2nd earl of Buckinghamshire, thus bringing Blickling Hall and the
Norfolk estates of the Hobarts into the Kerr family. In 1821 he was created
a peer of the United Kingdom as Baron Ker and he died on the 27th of April
1824. In 1900 Robert Schomberg Kerr (b. 1874) succeeded his father,

Schomberg Henry, the 9th marquess (1833-1900), as 10th marquess of
Lothian.

LOTHIAN. This name was formerly applied to a considerably larger
extent of country than the three counties of Linlithgow, Edinburgh and
Haddington. Roxburghshire and Berwickshire at all events were included in
it, probably also the upper part of Tweeddale (at least Selkirk). It would
thus embrace the eastern part of the Lowlands from the Forth to the
Cheviots, i.e. all the English part of Scotland in the 11th century. This
region formed from the 7th century onward part of the kingdoms of
Bernicia and Northumbria, though we have no definite information as to the
date or events by which it came into English hands. In Roman times,
according to Ptolemy, it was occupied by a people called Otadini, whose
name is thought to have been preserved in Manaw Gododin, the home of
the British king Cunedda before he migrated to North Wales. There is no
reason to doubt that the district remained in Welsh hands until towards the
close of the 6th century; for in the Historia Brittonum the Bernician king
Theodoric, whose traditional date is 572-579, is said to have been engaged
in war with four Welsh kings. One of these was Rhydderch Hen who, as we
know from Adamnan, reigned at Dumbarton, while another named Urien is
said to have besieged Theodoric in Lindisfarne. If this statement is to be
believed it is hardly likely that the English had by this time obtained a firm
footing beyond the Tweed. At all events there can be little doubt that the
whole region was conquered within the next fifty years. Most probably the

greater part of it was conquered by the Northumbrian king Æthelfrith, who,
according to Bede, ravaged the territory of the Britons more often than any
other English king, in some places reducing the natives to dependence, in
others exterminating them and replacing them by English settlers.

In the time of Oswic the English element became predominant in
northern Britain. His supremacy was acknowledged both by the Welsh in
the western Lowlands and by the Scots in Argyllshire. On the death of the
Pictish king Talorgan, the son of his brother Eanfrith, he seems to have
obtained the sovereignty over a considerable part of that nation also. Early
in Ecgfrith’s reign an attempt at revolt on the part of the Picts proved
unsuccessful. We hear at this time also of the establishment of an English
bishopric at Abercorn, which, however, only lasted for a few years. By the
disastrous overthrow of Ecgfrith in 685 the Picts, Scots and some of the
Britons also recovered their independence. Yet we find a succession of
English bishops at Whithorn from 730 to the 9th century, from which it may
be inferred that the south-west coast had already by this time become
English. The Northumbrian dominions were again enlarged by Eadberht,
who in 750 is said to have annexed Kyle, the central part of Ayrshire, with
other districts. In conjunction with Œngus mac Fergus, king of the Picts, he
also reduced the whole of the Britons to submission in 756. But this
subjugation was not lasting, and the British kingdom, though now reduced
to the basin of the Clyde, whence its inhabitants are known as Strathclyde
Britons, continued to exist for nearly three centuries. After Eadberht’s time
we hear little of events in the northern part of Northumbria, and there is
some reason for suspecting that English influence in the south-west began
to decline before long, as our list of bishops of Whithorn ceases early in the
9th century; the evidence on this point, however, is not so decisive as is
commonly stated. About 844 an important revolution took place among the
Picts. The throne was acquired by Kenneth mac Alpin, a prince of Scottish
family, who soon became formidable to the Northumbrians. He is said to

have invaded “Saxonia” six times, and to have burnt Dunbar and Melrose.
After the disastrous battle at York in 867 the Northumbrians were weakened
by the loss of the southern part of their territories, and between 883 and 889
the whole country as far as Lindisfarne was ravaged by the Scots. In 919,
however, we find their leader Aldred calling in Constantine II., king of the
Scots, to help them. A few years later together with Constantine and the
Britons they acknowledged the supremacy of Edward the Elder. After his
death, however, both the Scots and the Britons were for a time in alliance
with the Norwegians from Ireland, and consequently Æthelstan is said to
have ravaged a large portion of the Scottish king’s territories in 934.
Brunanburh, where Æthelstan defeated the confederates in 937, is believed
by many to have been in Dumfriesshire, but we have no information as to
the effects of the battle on the northern populations. By this time, however,
the influence of the Scottish kingdom certainly seems to have increased in
the south, and in 945 the English king Edmund gave Cumberland, i.e.
apparently the British kingdom of Strathclyde, to Malcolm I., king of the
Scots, in consideration of his alliance with him. Malcolm’s successor
Indulph (954-962) succeeded in capturing Edinburgh, which thenceforth
remained in possession of the Scots. His successors made repeated attempts
to extend their territory southwards, and certain late chroniclers state that
Kenneth II. in 971-975 obtained a grant of the whole of Lothian from
Edgar. Whatever truth this story may contain, the cession of the province
was finally effected by Malcolm II. by force of arms. At his first attempt in
1006 he seems to have suffered a great defeat from Uhtred, the son of earl
Waltheof. Twelve years later, however, he succeeded in conjunction with
Eugenius, king of Strathclyde, in annihilating the Northumbrian army at
Carham on the Tweed, and Eadulf Cudel, the brother and successor of
Uhtred, ceded all his territory to the north of that river as the price of peace.
Henceforth in spite of an invasion by Aldred, the son of Uhtred, during the
reign of Duncan, Lothian remained permanently in possession of the

Scottish kings. In the reign of Malcolm III. and his son, the English element
appears to have acquired considerable influence in the kingdom. Some three
years before he obtained his father’s throne Malcolm had by the help of earl
Siward secured the government of Cumbria (Strathclyde) with which
Lothian was probably united. Then in 1068 he received a large number of
exiles from England, amongst them the Ætheling Eadgar, whose sister
Margaret he married. Four other sons in succession occupied the throne,
and in the time of the youngest, David, who held most of the south of
Scotland as an earldom from 1107-1124 and the whole kingdom from 1124-
1153, the court seems already to have been composed chiefly of English
and Normans.

Authorities.—Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica (ed. C. Plummer,
Oxford, 1896); Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ed. Earle and Plummer,
Oxford, 1899); Simeon of Durham (Rolls Series, ed. T. Arnold, 1882);
W. F. Skene, Chronicle of Picts and Scots (Edinburgh, 1867), and
Celtic Scotland (Edinburgh, 1876-1880); and J. Rhys, Celtic Britain
(London).
(F. G. M. B.)

LOTI, PIERRE [the pen-name of Louis Marie Julien Viaud]
(1850- ), French author, was born at Rochefort on the 14th of January
1850. The Viauds are an old Protestant family, and Pierre Loti consistently
adhered, at least nominally, to the faith of his fathers. Of the picturesque
and touching incidents of his childhood he has given a very vivid account in

Le Roman d’un enfant (1890). His education began in Rochefort, but at the
age of seventeen, being destined for the navy, he entered the naval school,
Le Borda, and gradually rose in his profession, attaining the rank of captain
in 1906. In January 1910 he was placed on the reserve list. His pseudonym
is said to be due to his extreme shyness and reserve in early life, which
made his comrades call him after le Loti, an Indian flower which loves to
blush unseen. He was never given to books or study (when he was received
at the French Academy, he had the courage to say, “Loti ne sait pas lire”),
and it was not until 1876 that he was persuaded to write down and publish
some curious experiences at Constantinople, in Aziyadé, a book which, like
so many of Loti’s, seems half a romance, half an autobiography. He
proceeded to the South Seas, and on leaving Tahiti published the Polynesian
idyll, originally called Rarahu (1880), which was reprinted as Le Mariage
de Loti, and which first introduced to the wider public an author of
remarkable originality and charm. Le Roman d’un spahi, a record of the
melancholy adventures of a soldier in Senegambia, belongs to 1881. In
1882 Loti issued a collection of short studies under the general title of
Fleurs d’ennui. In 1883 he achieved the widest celebrity, for not only did he
publish Mon frère Yves, a novel describing the life of a French bluejacket in
all parts of the world—perhaps his most characteristic production—but he
was involved in a public discussion in a manner which did him great credit.
While taking part as a naval officer in the Tongking War, Loti had exposed
in the Figaro a series of scandals which followed on the capture of Hué
(1883), and was suspended from the service for more than a year. He
continued for some time nearly silent, but in 1886 he published a novel of
life among the Breton fisher-folk, called Pêcheur d’islande, the most
popular of all his writings. In 1887 he brought out a volume of
extraordinary merit, which has not received the attention it deserves; this is
Propos d’exil, a series of short studies of exotic places, in his peculiar semi-
autobiographic style. The fantastic novel of Japanese manners, Madame

Chrysanthème, belongs to the same year. Passing over one or two slighter
productions, we come in 1890 to Au Maroc, the record of a journey to Fez
in company with a French embassy. A collection of strangely confidential
and sentimental reminiscences, called Le Livre de la pitié et de la mort,
belongs to 1891. Loti was on board his ship at the port of Algiers when
news was brought to him of his election, on the 21st of May 1891, to the
French Academy. In 1892 he published Fantôme d’orient, another dreamy
study of life in Constantinople, a sort of continuation of Aziyadé. He
described a visit to the Holy Land, somewhat too copiously, in three
volumes (1895-1896), and wrote a novel, Ramuntcho (1897), a story of
manners in the Basque province, which is equal to his best writings. In 1900
he visited British India, with the view of describing what he saw; the result
appeared in 1903—L’Inde (sans les Anglais). At his best Pierre Loti was
unquestionably the finest descriptive writer of the day. In the delicate
exactitude with which he reproduced the impression given to his own alert
nerves by unfamiliar forms, colours, sounds and perfumes, he was without a
rival. But he was not satisfied with this exterior charm; he desired to blend
with it a moral sensibility of the extremest refinement, at once sensual and
ethereal. Many of his best books are long sobs of remorseful memory, so
personal, so intimate, that an English reader is amazed to find such depth of
feeling compatible with the power of minutely and publicly recording what
is felt. In spite of the beauty and melody and fragrance of Loti’s books his
mannerisms are apt to pall upon the reader, and his later books of pure
description were rather empty. His greatest successes were gained in the
species of confession, half-way between fact and fiction, which he essayed
in his earlier books. When all his limitations, however, have been rehearsed,
Pierre Loti remains, in the mechanism of style and cadence, one of the most
original and most perfect French writers of the second half of the 19th
century. Among his later works were: La Troisième jeunesse de Mme Prune
(1905); Les Désenchantées (1906, Eng. trans. by C. Bell); La Mort de

Philae (1908); Judith Renaudin (Théâtre Antoine, 1904), a five-act
historical play based on an earlier book; and, in collaboration with Émile
Vedel, a translation of King Lear, also produced at the Théâtre Antoine in
1904.
(E. G.)

LÖTSCHEN PASS, or Lötschberg, an easy glacier pass (8842
ft.) leading from Kandersteg in the Bernese Oberland to the Lötschen valley
in the Valais. It is a very old pass, first mentioned distinctly in 1352, but
probably crossed previously by the Valaisans who colonized various parts
of the Bernese Oberland. In 1384 and again in 1419 battles were fought on
it between the Bernese and the Valaisans, while in 1698 a mule path (of
which traces still exist) was constructed on the Bernese slope, though not
continued beyond owing to the fear of the Valaisans that the Bernese would
come over and alter their religion. In 1906 the piercing of a tunnel (8½ m.
long) beneath this pass was begun, starting a little above Kandersteg and
ending at Goppenstein near the mouth of the Lötschen valley. Subsidies
were granted by both the confederation and the canton of Bern. This pass is
to be carefully distinguished from the Lötschenlücke (10,512 ft.), another
easy glacier pass which leads from the head of the Lötschen valley to the
Great Aletsch glacier.
(W. A. B. C.)

LOTTERIES. The word lottery1 has no very definite signification.
It may be applied to any process of determining prizes by lot, whether the
object be amusement or gambling or public profit. In the Roman Saturnalia
and in the banquets of aristocratic Romans the object was amusement; the
guests received apophoreta. The same plan was followed on a magnificent
scale by some of the emperors. Nero gave such prizes as a house or a slave.
Heliogabalus introduced an element of absurdity—one ticket for a golden
vase, another for six flies. This custom descended to the festivals given by
the feudal and merchant princes of Europe, especially of Italy; and it
formed a prominent feature of the splendid court hospitality of Louis XIV.
In the Italian republics of the 16th century the lottery principle was applied
to encourage the sale of merchandise. The lotto of Florence and the
seminario of Genoa are well known, and Venice established a monopoly
and drew a considerable revenue for the state. The first letters patent for a
lottery in France were granted in 1539 by Francis I., and in 1656 the Italian,
Lorenzo Tonti (the originator of “Tontines”) opened another for the building
of a stone bridge between the Louvre and the Faubourg St Germain. The
institution became very popular in France, and gradually assumed an
important place in the government finance. The parlements frequently
protested against it, but it had the support of Mazarin, and L. Phelypeaux,
comte de Pontchartrain, by this means raised the expenses of the Spanish
Succession War. Necker, in his Administration des finances, estimates the
public charge for lotteries at 4,000,000 livres per annum. There were also

lotteries for the benefit of religious communities and charitable purposes.
Two of the largest were the Loteries de Piété and Des Enfans Trouvés.
These and also the great Loterie de l’École militaire were practically
merged in the Loterie Royale by the decree of 1776, suppressing all private
lotteries in France. The financial basis of these larger lotteries was to take
5⁄24ths for expenses and benefit, and return 19⁄24ths to the public who

subscribed. The calculation of chances had become a familiar science. It is
explained in detail by Caminade de Castres in Enc. méth. finances, ii. s.v.
“Loterie.” The names of the winning numbers in the first drawing were (1)
extrait, (2) ambe, (3) terne, (4) quaterne, (5) quine. After this there were
four drawings called primes gratuites. The extrait gave fifteen times the
price of the ticket; the quine gave one million times the price. These are
said to be much more favourable terms than were given in Vienna,
Frankfort and other leading European cities at the end of the 18th century.
The Loterie Royale was ultimately suppressed in 1836. Under the law of the
29th of May 1844 lotteries may be held for the assistance of charity and the
fine arts. In 1878 twelve million lottery tickets of one franc each were sold
in Paris to pay for prizes to exhibitors in the great Exhibition and expenses
of working-men visitors. The first prize was worth £5000; the second,
£4000, and the third and fourth £2000 each. The Société du Crédit Foncier,
and many of the large towns, are permitted to contract loans, the periodical
repayments of which are determined by lot. This practice, which is
prohibited in Germany and England, resembles the older system of giving
higher and lower rates of interest for money according to lot. Lotteries were
suppressed in Belgium in 1830, Sweden in 1841 and Switzerland in 1865,
but they still figure in the state budgets of Austria-Hungary, Prussia and
other German States, Holland, Spain, Italy and Denmark. In addition to
lottery loans, ordinary lotteries (occasion lotteries) are numerous in various
countries of the continent of Europe. They are of various magnitude and are
organized for a variety of purposes, such as charity, art, agriculture, church-

building, &c. It is becoming the tendency, however, to discourage private
and indiscriminate lotteries, and even state lotteries which contribute to the
revenue. In Austria-Hungary and Germany, for instance, every year sees
fewer places where tickets can be taken for them receive licenses. In 1904 a
proposal for combining a working-class savings bank with a national lottery
was seriously considered by the Prussian ministry. The scheme, which owes
its conception to August Scherl, editor of the Berlin Lokalanzeiger, is an
endeavour to utilize the love of gambling for the purpose of promoting
thrift among the working-classes. It was proposed to make weekly
collections from subscribers, in fixed amounts, ranging from sixpence to
four shillings. The interest on the money deposited would not go to the
depositors but would be set aside to form the prizes. Three hundred
thousand tickets, divisible into halves, quarters and eighths, according to the
sum deposited weekly, would form a series of 12,500 prizes, of a total value
of £27,000. At the same time, the subscriber, while having his ordinary
lottery chances of these prizes, still has to his credit intact the amount which
he has subscribed week by week.

In England the earliest lotteries sanctioned by government were for such
purposes as the repair of harbours in 1569, and the Virginia Company in
1612. In the lottery of 1569, 40,000 chances were sold at ten shillings each,
the prizes being “plate, and certain sorts of merchandises.” In 1698
lotteries, with the exception of the Royal Oak lottery for the benefit of the
Royal Fishing Company, were prohibited as common nuisances, by which
children, servants and other unwary persons had been ruined. This
prohibition was in the 18th century gradually extended to illegal insurances
on marriages and other events, and to a great many games with dice, such
as faro, basset, hazard, except backgammon and games played in the royal
palace. In spite of these prohibitions, the government from 1709 down to
1824 annually raised considerable sums in lotteries authorized by act of
parliament. The prizes were in the form of terminable or perpetual

annuities. The £10 tickets were sold at a premium of say 40% to contractors
who resold them in retail (sometimes in one-sixteenth parts) by “morocco
men,” or men with red leather books who travelled through the country. As
the drawing extended over forty days, a very pernicious system arose of
insuring the fate of tickets during the drawing for a small premium of 4d. or
6d. This was partly cured by the Little Go Act of 1802, directed against the
itinerant wheels which plied between the state lotteries, and partly by
Perceval’s Act in 1806, which confined the drawing of each lottery to one
day. From 1793 to 1824 the government made an average yearly profit of
£346,765. Cope, one of the largest contractors, is said to have spent £36,000
in advertisements in a single year. The English lotteries were used to raise
loans for general purposes, but latterly they were confined to particular
objects, such as the improvement of London, the disposal of a museum, the
purchase of a picture gallery, &c. Through the efforts of Lord Lyttleton and
others a strong public opinion was formed against them, and in 1826 they
were finally prohibited. An energetic proposal to revive the system was
made before the select committee on metropolitan improvements in 1830,
but it was not listened to. By a unique blunder in legislation, authority was
given to hold a lottery under an act of 1831 which provided a scheme for
the improvement of the city of Glasgow. These “Glasgow lotteries” were
suppressed by an act of 1834. Art Unions were legalized by the Art Unions
Act 1846. The last lottery prominently before the public in England was
that of Dethier’s twelfth-cake lottery, which was suppressed on the 27th of
December 1860. As defined at the beginning of this article, the word lottery
has a meaning wide enough to include missing-word competitions,
distributions by tradesmen of prize coupons, sweepstakes, &c. See Report
of Joint Select Committee on Lotteries, &c. (1908). The statute law in
Scotland is the same as in England. At common law in Scotland it is
probable that all lotteries and raffles, for whatever purpose held, may be

indicted as nuisances. The art unions are supposed to be protected by a
special statute.

United States.—The American Congress of 1776 instituted a national
lottery. Most states at that time legalized lotteries for public objects, and
before 1820 the Virginia legislature passed seventy acts authorizing lotteries
for various public purposes, such as schools, roads, &c.—about 85% of the
subscriptions being returned in prizes. At an early period (1795) the city of
Washington was empowered to set up lotteries as a mode of raising money
for public purposes; and this authorization from the Maryland legislature
was approved by an act of the Federal Congress in 1812. In 1833 they were
prohibited in New York and Massachusetts and gradually in the other states,
until they survived only in Louisiana. In that state, the Louisiana State
Lottery, a company chartered in 1868, had a monopoly for which it paid
$40,000 to the state treasury. Its last charter was granted in 1879 for a
period of twenty-five years, and a renewal was refused in 1890. In 1890
Congress forbade the use of the mails for promoting any lottery enterprise
by a statute so stringent that it was held to make it a penal offence to
employ them to further the sale of Austrian government bonds, issued under
a scheme for drawing some by lot for payment at a premium (see Horner v.
United States, 147 United States Reports, 449). This had the effect of
compelling the Louisiana State Lottery to move its quarters to Honduras, in
which place it still exists, selling its bonds to a considerable extent in the
Southern States.

Since lotteries have become illegal there have been a great number
of judicial decisions defining a lottery. In general, where skill or
judgment is to be exercised there is no lottery, the essential element of
which is chance or lot. There are numerous statutes against lotteries,
the reason being given that they “tend to promote a gambling spirit,”
and that it is the duty of the state to “protect the morals and advance the

welfare of the people.” In New York the Constitution of 1846 forbade
lotteries, and by § 324 of the Penal Code a lottery is declared “unlawful
and a public nuisance.” “Contriving” and advertising lotteries is also
penal. The following have been held illegal lotteries: In New York, a
concert, the tickets for which entitled the holder to a prize to be drawn
by lot; in Indiana, offering a gold watch to the purchaser of goods who
guesses the number of beans in a bottle; in Texas, selling “prize candy”
boxes; and operating a nickel-in-the-slot machine—so also in
Louisiana; in Massachusetts, the “policy” or “envelope game,” or a
“raffle”; in Kentucky (1905), prize coupon packages, the coupons
having to spell a certain word (U.S. v. Jefferson, 134 Fed. R. 299); in
Kansas (1907) it was held by the Supreme Court that the gift of a hat-
pin to each purchaser was not illegal as a “gift enterprise,” there being
no chance or lot. In Oklahoma (1907) it was held that the making of
contracts for the payment of money, the certainty in value of return
being dependent on chance, was a lottery (Fidelity Fund Co. v.
Vaughan, 90 Pac. Rep. 34). The chief features of a lottery are
“procuring through lot or chance, by the investment of a sum of money
or something of value, some greater amount of money or thing of
greater value. When such are the chief features of any scheme whatever
it may be christened, or however it may be guarded or concealed by
cunningly devised conditions or screens, it is under the law a lottery”
(U.S. v. Wallace, 58, Fed. Rep. 942). In 1894 and 1897 Congress
forbade the importation of lottery tickets or advertisements into the
United States. In 1899, setting up or promoting lotteries in Alaska was
prohibited by Congress, and in 1900 it forbade any lottery or sale of
lottery tickets in Hawaii. In Porto Rico lotteries, raffles and gift-
enterprises are forbidden (Penal Code, 1902, § 291).

Authorities.—Critique hist. pol. mor. econ. et comm. sur les loteries
anc. et mod. spirituelles et temporelles des états et des églises (3 vols.,

Amsterdam, 1697), by the Bolognese historian Gregorio Leti; J.
Dessaulx, De la passion du jeu depuis les anciens temps jusqu’à nos
jours (Paris, 1779); Endemann, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Lottrie
und zur heutigen Lotterie (Bonn, 1882); Larson, Lottrie und
Volkswirtschaft (Berlin, 1894); J. Ashton, History of English Lotteries
(1893); Annual Report of the American Historical Association (1892);
Journal of the American Social Science Association, xxxvi. 17.

1 The word “lottery” is directly derived from Ital. lotteria, cf. Fr. loterie, formed from
lotto, lot, game of chance. “Lot” is in origin a Teutonic word, adopted into Romanic
languages. In O. Eng. it appears as hlot, cf. Dutch lot, Ger. Loos, Dan. lod, &c. The
meaning of the Teutonic root hleut from which these words have derived is unknown.
Primarily “lot” meant the object, such as a disk or counter of wood, a pebble, bean or the
like, which was drawn or cast to decide by chance, under divine guidance, various matters,
such as disputes, divisions of property, selection of officers and frequently as a method of
divination in ancient times. From this original sense the meaning develops into that which
falls to a person by lot, chance or fate, then to any portion of land, &c., allotted to a person,
and hence, quite generally, of a quantity of anything.

LOTTI, ANTONIO (1667?-1740), Italian musical composer, was
the son of Matteo Lotti, Kapellmeister to the court of Hanover. He was
born, however, at Venice and as a pupil of Legrenzi. He entered the Doge’s
chapel as a boy, and in 1689 was engaged as an alto singer, succeeding later
to the posts of deputy organist (1690), second organist (1692), first organist
(1704), and, finally, in 1736 Maestro di Cappella at St Mark’s church. He
was also a composer of operas, and having attracted the interest of the

crown prince of Saxony during his visit to Venice in 1712, he was invited to
Dresden, where he went in 1717. After producing three operas there he was
obliged to return to his duties at Venice in 1719. He died on the 5th of
January 1740. Like many other Venetian composers he wrote operas for
Vienna, and enjoyed a considerable reputation outside Italy. A volume of
madrigals published in 1705 contains the famous In una siepe ombrosa,
passed off by Bononcini as his own in London. Another is quoted by
Martini in his Saggio di Contrappunto. Among his pupils were Alberti,
Bassani, Galuppi, Gasparini and Marcello. Burney justly praises his church
music, which is severe in style, but none the less modern in its grace and
pathos. A fine setting of the Dies Irae is in the Imperial Library at Vienna,
and some of his masses have been printed in the collections of Proske and
Lück.

LOTTO, LORENZO (c. 1480-1556), Italian painter, is variously
stated to have been born at Bergamo, Venice and Treviso, between 1475 and
1480, but a document published by Dr Bampo proves that he was born in
Venice, and it is to be gathered from his will that 1480 was probably the
year of his birth. Overshadowed by the genius of his three great
contemporaries, Titian, Giorgione and Palma, he had been comparatively
neglected by art historians until Mr Bernhard Berenson devoted to him an
“essay in constructive art criticism,” which not only restores to him his
rightful position among the great masters of the Renaissance, but also
throws clear light upon the vexed question of his artistic descent. Earlier

authorities have made Lotto a pupil of Giovanni Bellini (Morelli), of
Previtali (Crowe and Cavalcaselle), of Leonardo da Vinci (Lomazzo),
whilst others discovered in his work the influences of Cima, Carpaccio,
Dürer, Palma and Francia. Mr Berenson has, however, proved that he was
the pupil of Alvise Vivarini, whose religious severity and asceticism
remained paramount in his work, even late in his life, when he was attracted
by the rich glow of Giorgione’s and Titian’s colour. What distinguishes
Lotto from his more famous contemporaries is his psychological insight
into character and his personal vision—his unconventionality, which is
sufficient to account for the comparative neglect suffered by him when his
art is placed beside the more typical art of Titian and Giorgione, the
supreme expression of the character of the period.

That Lotto, who was one of the most productive painters of his time,
could work for thirty years without succumbing to the mighty influence of
Titian’s sumptuous colour, is explained by the fact that during these years
he was away from Venice, as is abundantly proved by documents and by the
evidence of signed and dated works. The first of these documents, dated
1503, proves him to have lived at Treviso at this period. His earliest
authentic pictures, Sir Martin Conway’s “Danaë” (about 1498) and the “St
Jerome” of the Louvre (a similar subject is at the Madrid Gallery ascribed
to Titian), as indeed all the works executed before 1509, have unmistakable
Vivarinesque traits in the treatment of the drapery and landscape, and cool
grey tonality. To this group belong the Madonnas at Bridgewater House,
Villa Borghese, Naples, and Sta Cristina near Treviso, the Recanati
altarpiece, the “Assumption of the Virgin” at Asolo, and the portrait of a
young man at Hampton Court. We find him at Rome between 1508 and
1512, at the time Raphael was painting in the Stanza della Signatura. A
document in the Corsini library mentions that Lotto received 100 ducats as
an advance payment for fresco-work in the upper floor of the Vatican, but
there is no evidence that this work was ever executed. In the next dated

works, the “Entombment” at Jesi (1512), and the “Transfiguration,” “St
James,” and “St Vincent” at Recanati, Lotto has abandoned the dryness and
cool colour of his earlier style, and adopted a fluid method and a blonde,
joyful colouring. In 1513 we find him at Bergamo, where he had entered
into a contract to paint for 500 gold ducats an altarpiece for S. Stefano. The
picture was only completed in 1516, and is now at S. Bartolommeo. From
the next years, spent mostly at Bergamo, with intervals in Venice and Jesi in
the Marches, date the Dresden “Madonna,” “Christ taking leave of his
Mother” at the Berlin Gallery, the “Bride and Bridegroom” at Madrid, the
National Gallery “Family Group” and portrait of the Protonothary Giuliano,
several portraits in Berlin, Milan and Vienna, numerous altarpieces in and
near Bergamo, the strangely misnamed “Triumph of Chastity” at the
Rospigliosi Palace in Rome, and the portrait of Andrea Odoni at Hampton
Court. In 1526 or 1527 Lotto returned to Venice, where Titian ruled
supreme in the world of art; and it was only natural that the example of the
great master should have fired him to emulation, though his experiments in
this direction were confined to an attempt at rivalling the master’s rich and
ruddy colour-schemes. Even in the Carmine altarpiece, the “St Nicholas of
Bari,” which is his nearest approach to Titian, he retained his
individualized, as opposed to Titian’s generalized, expression of emotion.
But it was only a passing phase, and he soon returned to the cooler schemes
of his earlier work. Among his chief pictures executed in Venice between
1529 and 1540 are the “Christ and the Adulteress,” now at the Louvre, the
“Visitation” at the Jesi Library, the “Crucifixion” at Monte S. Giusto, the
Madonna at the Uffizi, the “Madonna and Saints” at Cingoli, and some
portraits at the Berlin and Vienna museums, the Villa Borghese and Doria
Palace in Rome, and at Dorchester House. He is again to be found at
Treviso from 1542-1545, at Ancona in 1550, the year in which he entirely
lost his voice; and in 1552 he “devoted his person and all his property to the
Holy Virgin of Loreto” and took up his abode with the monks of that shrine.

He died in 1556. A codex in his own handwriting, discovered in the
archives of Loreto, not only includes a complete statement of his accounts
from about 1539 to his death, but has a most interesting entry from which
we gather that in 1540 Lotto completed the portraits of Martin Luther and
his wife. These portraits could not have been painted from life; they were
presumably executed from some contemporary engraving.

See Lorenzo Lotto, by Bernard Berenson (London, 1901).

LOTTO (Ital. for “lot”), a gambling game usually called Keno in
America, played by any number of persons upon large boards or cards, each
of which is divided into three horizontal rows of nine spaces, four spaces in
each row being left blank and the other five marked with numbers up to 90.
Each card is designated by a general number. The cards usually lie on the
gambling-table, and a player may buy from the bank as many as he cares to
use, each card being registered or pegged on an exposed table as soon as
bought. Ninety small ivory markers, generally balls flattened on one side,
numbered from 1 to 90, are placed in a bag and shaken out one by one, or,
more usually, in a so-called keno-goose, a kind of urn with a spout through
which the balls are allowed to roll by means of a spring. When a number
falls out, the banker, or keno-roller, calls it out distinctly, and each player
upon whose card that number occurs places a mark over it. This is repeated
until one player has all the numbers in one row of his card covered, upon

which he calls out “Keno!” and wins all the money staked excepting a
percentage to the bank.

LOTUS, a popular name applied to several plants. The lotus fruits of
the Greeks belonged to Zizyphus Lotus, a bush native in south Europe with
fruits as large as sloes, containing a mealy substance which can be used for
making bread and also a fermented drink. In ancient times the fruits were an
important article of food among the poor; whence “lotophagi” or lotus-
eaters. Zizyphus is a member of the natural order Rhamnaceae to which
belongs the British buckthorn. The Egyptian lotus was a water-lily,
Nymphaea Lotus; as also is the sacred lotus of the Hindus, Nelumbium
speciosum. The lotus tree, known to the Romans as the Libyan lotus, and
planted by them for shade, was probably Celtis australis, the nettle-tree
(q.v.), a southern European tree, a native of the elm family, with fruits like
small cherries, which are first red and then black. Lotus of botanists is a
genus of the pea-family (Leguminosae), containing a large number of
species of herbs and undershrubs widely distributed in the temperate
regions of the old world. It is represented in Britain by L. corniculatus,
bird’s foot trefoil, a low-growing herb, common in pastures and waste
places, with clusters of small bright yellow pea-like flowers, which are
often streaked with crimson; the popular name is derived from the pods
which when ripe spread like the toes of a bird’s foot.

LOTUS-EATERS (Gr. Λωτοφάγοι), a Libyan tribe known to the
Greeks as early as the time of Homer. Herodotus (iv. 177) describes their
country as in the Libyan district bordering on the Syrtes, and says that a
caravan route led from it to Egypt. Victor Bérard identifies it with the
modern Jerba. When Odysseus reached the country of the Lotophagi, many
of his sailors after eating the lotus lost all wish to return home. Both Greeks
and Romans used the expression “to eat the lotus” to denote forgetfulness
(cf. Tennyson’s poem “The Lotus-Eaters”).

There has been considerable discussion as to the identification of the
Homeric lotus. Some have held that it is a prickly shrub, Zizyphus
Lotus, which bears a sweet-tasting fruit, and still grows in the old home
of the Lotophagi. It is eaten by the natives, who also make a kind of
wine from the juice. P. Champault (Phéniciens et Grecs en Italie
d’après l’Odyssée, p. 400, note 2), however, maintains that the lotus
was a date; Victor Bérard (Les Phéniciens et l’Odyssée, 1902-1903, ii.
102) is doubtful, but contends that it was certainly a tree-fruit. If either
of these be correct, then the lotus of Od. iv. 603-604 is quite a different
plant, a kind of clover. Now Strabo (xvii. 829a) calls the lotus πόαν
τινὰ καὶ ῥίζαν. Putting these two references together with Sulpicius
Severus, Dialogi i. 4. 4, R. M. Henry suggests that the Homeric lotus
was really the πόα of Strabo, i.e. a kind of clover (Classical Review,
December 1906, p. 435).

LOTZE, RUDOLF HERMANN (1817-1881), German
philosopher, was born in Bautzen on the 21st of May 1817, the son of a
physician. He received his education in the gymnasium of Zittau under
teachers who inspired him with an enduring love of the classical authors, as
we see from his translation of the Antigone of Sophocles into Latin verse,
published when he had reached middle life. He went to the university of
Leipzig as a student of philosophy and natural sciences, but entered
officially as a student of medicine. He was then only seventeen. It appears
that thus early Lotze’s studies were governed by two distinct interests. The
first was scientific, based upon mathematical and physical studies under the
guidance of E. H. Weber, W. Volckmann and G. T. Fechner. The other was
his aesthetical and artistic interest, which was developed under the care of
C. H. Weisse. To the former he owes his appreciation of exact investigation
and a complete knowledge of the aims of science, to the latter an equal
admiration for the great circle of ideas which had been diffused by the
teaching of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. Each of these influences, which
early in life must have been familiar to him, tempered and modified the
other. The true method of science which he possessed forced him to
condemn as useless the entire form which Schelling’s and Hegel’s
expositions had adopted, especially the dialectic method of the latter, whilst
his love of art and beauty, and his appreciation of moral purposes, revealed
to him the existence of a trans-phenomenal world of values into which no
exact science could penetrate. It is evident how this initial position at once

defined to him the tasks which philosophy had to perform. First there were
the natural sciences, themselves only just emerging from a confused
conception of their true method; especially those which studied the
borderland of physical and mental phenomena, the medical sciences; and
pre-eminently that science which has since become so popular, the science
of biology.

Lotze’s first essay was his dissertation De futurae biologiae principibus
philosophicis, with which he gained (1838) the degree of doctor of
medicine, after having only four months previously got the degree of doctor
of philosophy. Then, secondly, there arose the question whether the
methods of exact science sufficed to explain the connexion of phenomena,
or whether for the explanation of this the thinking mind was forced to resort
to some hypothesis not immediately verifiable by observation, but dictated
by higher aspirations and interests. And, if to satisfy these we were forced
to maintain the existence of a world of moral standards, it was, thirdly,
necessary to form some opinion as to the relation of these moral standards
of value to the forms and facts of phenomenal existence. These different
tasks, which philosophy had to fulfil, mark pretty accurately the aims of
Lotze’s writings, and the order in which they were published. He laid the
foundation of his philosophical system very early in his Metaphysik
(Leipzig, 1841) and his Logik (1843), short books published while he was
still a junior lecturer at Leipzig, from which university he migrated to
Göttingen, succeeding Herbart in the chair of philosophy. But it was only
during the last decade of his life that he ventured, with much hesitation, to
present his ideas in a systematic and final form. The two books mentioned
remained unnoticed by the reading public, and Lotze first became known to
a larger circle through a series of works which aimed at establishing in the
study of the physical and mental phenomena of the human organism in its
normal and diseased states the same general principles which had been
adopted in the investigation of inorganic phenomena. These works were his

Allgemeine Pathologie und Therapie als mechanische Naturwissenschaften
(Leipzig, 1842, 2nd ed., 1848), the articles “Lebenskraft” (1843) and “Seele
und Seelenleben” (1846) in Rud. Wagner’s Handwörterbuch der
Physiologie, his Allgemeine Physiologie des Körperlichen Lebens (Leipzig,
1851), and his Medizinische Psychologie oder Physiologie der Seele
(Leipzig, 1852).

When Lotze published these works, medical science was still much under
the influence of Schelling’s philosophy of nature. The mechanical laws, to
which external things were subject, were conceived as being valid only in
the inorganic world; in the organic and mental worlds these mechanical
laws were conceived as being disturbed or overridden by other powers,
such as the influence of final causes, the existence of types, the work of
vital and mental forces. This confusion Lotze, who had been trained in the
school of mathematical reasoning, tried to dispel. The laws which govern
particles of matter in the inorganic world govern them likewise if they are
joined into an organism. A phenomenon a, if followed by b in the one case,
is followed by the same b also in the other case. Final causes, vital and
mental forces, the soul itself can, if they act at all, only act through the
inexorable mechanism of natural laws. As we therefore have only to do with
the study of existing complexes of material and spiritual phenomena, the
changes in these must be explained in science by the rule of mechanical
laws, such as obtain everywhere in the world, and only by such. One of the
results of these investigations was to extend the meaning of the word
mechanism, and comprise under it all laws which obtain in the phenomenal
world, not excepting the phenomena of life and mind. Mechanism was the
unalterable connexion of every phenomenon a with other phenomena b, c,
d, either as following or preceding it; mechanism was the inexorable form
into which the events of this world are cast, and by which they are
connected. The object of those writings was to establish the all-pervading
rule of mechanism. But the mechanical view of nature is not identical with

the materialistic. In the last of the above-mentioned works the question is
discussed at great length how we have to consider mind, and the relation
between mind and body; the answer is—we have to consider mind as an
immaterial principle, its action, however, on the body and vice versa as
purely mechanical, indicated by the fixed laws of a psycho-physical
mechanism. These doctrines of Lotze—though pronounced with the distinct
and reiterated reserve that they did not contain a solution of the
philosophical question regarding the nature, origin, or deeper meaning of
this all-pervading mechanism, neither an explanation how the action of
external things on each other takes place nor yet of the relation of mind and
body, that they were merely a preliminary formula of practical scientific
value, itself requiring a deeper interpretation—these doctrines were
nevertheless by many considered to be the last word of the philosopher
who, denouncing the reveries of Schelling or the idealistic theories of
Hegel, established the science of life and mind on the same basis as that of
material things. Published as they were during the years when the modern
school of German materialism was at its height,1 these works of Lotze were
counted among the opposition literature which destroyed the phantom of
Hegelian wisdom and vindicated the independent and self-sufficing position
of empirical philosophy. Even philosophers of the eminence of I. H. Fichte
(the younger) did not escape this misinterpretation of Lotze’s true meaning,
though they had his Metaphysik and Logik to refer to, though he promised
in his Allgemeine Physiologie (1851) to enter in a subsequent work upon
the “bounding province between aesthetics and physiology,” and though in
his Medizinische Psychologie he had distinctly stated that his position was
neither the idealism of Hegel nor the realism of Herbart, nor materialism,
but that it was the conviction that the essence of everything is the part it
plays in the realization of some idea which is in itself valuable, that the
sense of an all-pervading mechanism is to be sought in this, that it denotes

the ways and means by which the highest idea, which we may call the idea
of the good, has voluntarily chosen to realize itself.

The misinterpretations which he had suffered induced Lotze to publish a
small pamphlet of a polemical character (Streitschriften, Leipzig, 1857), in
which he corrected two mistakes. The opposition which he had made to
Hegel’s formalism had induced some to associate him with the materialistic
school, others to count him among the followers of Herbart. Lotze publicly
and formally denied that he belonged to the school of Herbart, though he
admitted that historically the same doctrine which might be considered the
forerunner of Herbart’s teachings might lead to his own views, viz. the
monadology of Leibnitz.

When Lotze wrote these explanations, he had already given to the world
the first volume of his great work, Mikrokosmus (vol. i. 1856, vol. ii. 1858,
vol. iii. 1864; 3rd ed., 1876-1880). In many passages of his works on
pathology, physiology, and psychology Lotze had distinctly stated that the
method of research which he advocated there did not give an explanation of
the phenomena of life and mind, but only the means of observing and
connecting them together; that the meaning of all phenomena, and the
reason of their peculiar connexions, was a philosophical problem which
required to be attacked from a different point of view; and that the
significance especially which lay in the phenomena of life and mind would
only unfold itself if by an exhaustive survey of the entire life of man,
individually, socially, and historically, we gain the necessary data for
deciding what meaning attaches to the existence of this microcosm, or small
world of human life, in the macrocosm of the universe. This review, which
extends, in three volumes, over the wide field of anthropology, beginning
with the human frame, the soul, and their union in life, advancing to man,
his mind, and the course of the world, and concluding with history,
progress, and the connexion of things, ends with the same idea which was

expressed in Lotze’s earliest work, his Metaphysik. The view peculiar to
him is reached in the end as the crowning conception towards which all
separate channels of thought have tended, and in the light of which the life
of man in nature and mind, in the individual and in society, had been
surveyed. This view can be briefly stated as follows: Everywhere in the
wide realm of observation we find three distinct regions,—the region of
facts, the region of laws and the region of standards of value. These three
regions are separate only in our thoughts, not in reality. To comprehend the
real position we are forced to the conviction that the world of facts is the
field in which, and that laws are the means by which, those higher standards
of moral and aesthetical value are being realized; and such a union can
again only become intelligible through the idea of a personal Deity, who in
the creation and preservation of a world has voluntarily chosen certain
forms and laws, through the natural operation of which the ends of His
work are gained.

Whilst Lotze had thus in his published works closed the circle of his
thought, beginning with a conception metaphysically gained, proceeding to
an exhaustive contemplation of things in the light it afforded, and ending
with the stronger conviction of its truth which observation, experience, and
life could afford, he had all the time been lecturing on the various branches
of philosophy according to the scheme of academical instruction
transmitted from his predecessors. Nor can it be considered anything but a
gain that he was thus induced to expound his views with regard to those
topics, and in connexion with those problems, which were the traditional
forms of philosophical utterance. His lectures ranged over a wide field: he
delivered annually lectures on psychology and on logic (the latter including
a survey of the entirety of philosophical research under the title
Encyclopädie der Philosophie), then at longer intervals lectures on
metaphysics, philosophy of nature, philosophy of art, philosophy of
religion, rarely on history of philosophy and ethics. In these lectures he

expounded his peculiar views in a stricter form, and during the last decade
of his life he embodied the substance of those courses in his System der
Philosophie, of which only two volumes have appeared (vol. i. Logik, 1st
ed., Leipzig, 1874, 2nd ed., 1880; vol. ii. Metaphysik, 1879). The third and
concluding volume, which was to treat in a more condensed form the
principal problems of practical philosophy, of philosophy of art and
religion, never appeared. A small pamphlet on psychology, containing the
last form in which he had begun to treat the subject in his lectures (abruptly
terminated through his death on the 1st of July 1881) during the summer
session of 1881, has been published by his son. Appended to this volume is
a complete list of Lotze’s writings, compiled by Professor Rehnisch of
Göttingen.

To understand this series of Lotze’s writings, it is necessary to begin
with his definition of philosophy. This is given after his exposition of
logic has established two points, viz. the existence in our mind of
certain laws and forms according to which we connect the material
supplied to us by our senses, and, secondly, the fact that logical thought
cannot be usefully employed without the assumption of a further set of
connexions, not logically necessary, but assumed to exist between the
data of experience and observation. These connexions of a real not
formal character are handed to us by the separate sciences and by the
usage and culture of everyday life. Language has crystallized them into
certain definite notions and expressions, without which we cannot
proceed a single step, but which we have accepted without knowing
their exact meaning, much less their origin. In consequence the special
sciences and the wisdom of common life entangle themselves easily
and frequently in contradictions. A problem of a purely formal
character thus presents itself, viz. this—to try to bring unity and
harmony into the scattered thoughts of our general culture, to trace
them to their primary assumptions and follow them into their ultimate

consequences, to connect them all together, to remodel, curtail or
amplify them, so as to remove their apparent contradictions, and to
combine them in the unity of an harmonious view of things, and
especially to investigate those conceptions which form the initial
assumptions of the several sciences, and to fix the limits of their
applicability. This is the formal definition of philosophy. Whether an
harmonious conception thus gained will represent more than an
agreement among our thoughts, whether it will represent the real
connexion of things and thus possess objective not merely subjective
value, cannot be decided at the outset. It is also unwarranted to start
with the expectation that everything in the world should be explained
by one principle, and it is a needless restriction of our means to expect
unity of method. Nor are we able to start our philosophical
investigations by an inquiry into the nature of human thought and its
capacity to attain an objective knowledge, as in this case we would be
actually using that instrument the usefulness of which we were trying
to determine. The main proof of the objective value of the view we
may gain will rather lie in the degree in which it succeeds in assigning
to every element of culture its due position, or in which it is able to
appreciate and combine different and apparently opposite tendencies
and interests, in the sort of justice with which it weighs our manifold
desires and aspirations, balancing them in due proportions, refusing to
sacrifice to a one-sided principle any truth or conviction which
experience has proven to be useful and necessary. The investigations
will then naturally divide themselves into three parts, the first of which
deals with those to our mind inevitable forms in which we are obliged
to think about things, if we think at all (metaphysics), the second being
devoted to the great region of facts, trying to apply the results of
metaphysics to these, specially the two great regions of external and
mental phenomena (cosmology and psychology), the third dealing with

those standards of value from which we pronounce our aesthetical or
ethical approval or disapproval. In each department we shall have to
aim first of all at views clear and consistent within themselves, but,
secondly, we shall in the end wish to form some general idea or to risk
an opinion how laws, facts and standards of value may be combined in
one comprehensive view. Considerations of this latter kind will
naturally present themselves in the two great departments of
cosmology and psychology, or they may be delegated to an
independent research under the name of religious philosophy. We have
already mentioned the final conception in which Lotze’s speculation
culminates, that of a personal Deity, Himself the essence of all that
merits existence for its own sake, who in the creation and government
of a world has voluntarily chosen certain laws and forms through
which His ends are to be realized. We may add that according to this
view nothing is real but the living spirit of God and the world of living
spirits which He has created; the things of this world have only reality
in so far as they are the appearance of spiritual substance, which
underlies everything. It is natural that Lotze, having this great and final
conception always before him, works under its influence from the very
beginning of his speculations, permitting us, as we progress, to gain
every now and then a glimpse of that interpretation of things which to
him contains the solution of our difficulties.

The key to Lotze’s theoretical philosophy lies in his metaphysics, to
the exposition of which important subject the first and last of his larger
publications have been devoted. To understand Lotze’s philosophy, a
careful and repeated perusal of these works is absolutely necessary.
The object of his metaphysics is so to remodel the current notions
regarding the existence of things and their connexions with which the
usage of language supplies us as to make them consistent and
thinkable. The further assumption, that the modified notions thus

gained have an objective meaning, and that they somehow correspond
to the real order of the existing world which of course they can never
actually describe, depends upon a general confidence which we must
have in our reasoning powers, and in the significance of a world in
which we ourselves with all the necessary courses of our thoughts have
a due place assigned. The principle therefore of these investigations is
opposed to two attempts frequently repeated in the history of
philosophy, viz.: (1) the attempt to establish general laws or forms,
which the development of things must have obeyed, or which a Creator
must have followed in the creation of a world (Hegel); and (2) the
attempt to trace the genesis of our notions and decide as to their
meaning and value (modern theories of knowledge). Neither of these
attempts is practicable. The world of many things surrounds us; our
notions, by which we manage correctly or incorrectly to describe it, are
also ready made. What remains to be done is, not to explain how such a
world manages to be what it is, nor how we came to form these
notions, but merely this—to expel from the circle and totality of our
conceptions those abstract notions which are inconsistent and jarring,
or to remodel and define them so that they may constitute a consistent
and harmonious view. In this endeavour Lotze discards as useless and
untenable many favourite conceptions of the school, many crude
notions of everyday life. The course of things and their connexion is
only thinkable by the assumption of a plurality of existences, the reality
of which (as distinguished from our knowledge of them) can be
conceived only as a multitude of relations. This quality of standing in
relation to other things is that which gives to a thing its reality. And the
nature of this reality again can neither be consistently represented as a
fixed and hard substance nor as an unalterable something, but only as a
fixed order of recurrence of continually changing events or
impressions. But, further, every attempt to think clearly what those

relations are, what we really mean, if we talk of a fixed order of events,
forces upon us the necessity of thinking also that the different things
which stand in relations or the different phases which follow each other
cannot be merely externally strung together or moved about by some
indefinable external power, in the form of some predestination or
inexorable fate. The things themselves which exist and their changing
phases must stand in some internal connexion; they themselves must be
active or passive, capable of doing or suffering. This would lead to the
view of Leibnitz, that the world consists of monads, self-sufficient
beings, leading an inner life. But this idea involves the further
conception of Leibnitz, that of a pre-established harmony, by which the
Creator has taken care to arrange the life of each monad, so that it
agrees with that of all others. This conception, according to Lotze, is
neither necessary nor thoroughly intelligible. Why not interpret at once
and render intelligible the common conception originating in natural
science, viz. that of a system of laws which governs the many things?
But, in attempting to make this conception quite clear and thinkable,
we are forced to represent the connexion of things as a universal
substance, the essence of which we conceive as a system of laws which
underlies everything and in its own self connects everything, but
imperceptible, and known to us merely through the impressions it
produces on us, which we call things. A final reflection then teaches us
that the nature of this universal and all-pervading substance can only be
imagined by us as something analogous to our own mental life, where
alone we experience the unity of a substance (which we call self)
preserved in the multitude of its (mental) states. It also becomes clear
that only where such mental life really appears need we assign an
independent existence, but that the purposes of everyday life as well as
those of science are equally served if we deprive the material things
outside of us of an independence, and assign to them merely a

connected existence through the universal substance by the action of
which alone they can appear to us.

The universal substance, which we may call the absolute, is at this
stage of our investigations not endowed with the attributes of a
personal Deity, and it will remain to be seen by further analysis in how
far we are able—without contradiction—to identify it with the object
of religious veneration, in how far that which to metaphysics is merely
a postulate can be gradually brought nearer to us and become a living
power. Much in this direction is said by Lotze in various passages of
his writings; anything complete, however, on the subject is wanting.
Nor would it seem as if it could be the intention of the author to do
much more than point out the lines on which the further treatment of
the subject should advance. The actual result of his personal inquiries,
the great idea which lies at the foundation of his philosophy, we know.
It may be safely stated that Lotze would allow much latitude to
individual convictions, as indeed it is evident that the empty notion of
an absolute can only become living and significant to us in the same
degree as experience and thought have taught us to realize the
seriousness of life, the significance of creation, the value of the
beautiful and the good, and the supreme worth of personal holiness. To
endow the universal substance with moral attributes, to maintain that it
is more than the metaphysical ground of everything, to say it is the
perfect realization of the holy, the beautiful and the good, can only
have a meaning for him who feels within himself what real not
imaginary values are clothed in those expressions.

We have still to mention that aesthetics formed a principal and
favourite study of Lotze’s, and that he has treated this subject also in
the light of the leading ideas of his philosophy. See his essays Ueber
den Begriff der Schönheit (Göttingen, 1845) and Ueber Bedingungen

der Kunstschönheit, ibid. (1847); and especially his Geschichte der
Aesthetik in Deutschland (Munich, 1868).

Lotze’s historical position is of much interest. Though he disclaims
being a follower of Herbart, his formal definition of philosophy and his
conception of the object of metaphysics are similar to those of Herbart,
who defines philosophy as an attempt to remodel the notions given by
experience. In this endeavour he forms with Herbart an opposition to
the philosophies of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, which aimed at
objective and absolute knowledge, and also to the criticism of Kant,
which aimed at determining the validity of all human knowledge. But
this formal agreement includes material differences, and the spirit
which breathes in Lotze’s writings is more akin to the objects and
aspirations of the idealistic school than to the cold formalism of
Herbart. What, however, with the idealists was an object of thought
alone, the absolute, is to Lotze only inadequately definable in rigorous
philosophical language; the aspirations of the human heart, the contents
of our feelings and desires, the aims of art and the tenets of religious
faith must be grasped in order to fill the empty idea of the absolute
with meaning. These manifestations of the divine spirit again cannot be
traced and understood by reducing (as Hegel did) the growth of the
human mind in the individual, in society and in history to the
monotonous rhythm of a speculative schematism; the essence and
worth which is in them reveals itself only to the student of detail, for
reality is larger and wider than philosophy; the problem, “how the one
can be many,” is only solved for us in the numberless examples in life
and experience which surround us, for which we must retain a lifelong
interest and which constitute the true field of all useful human work.
This conviction of the emptiness of terms and abstract notions, and of
the fulness of individual life, has enabled Lotze to combine in his
writings the two courses into which German philosophical thought had

been moving since the death of its great founder, Leibnitz. We may
define these courses by the terms esoteric and exoteric—the former the
philosophy of the school, cultivated principally at the universities,
trying to systematize everything and reduce all our knowledge to an
intelligible principle, losing in this attempt the deeper meaning of
Leibnitz’s philosophy; the latter the unsystematized philosophy of
general culture which we find in the work of the great writers of the
classical period, Lessing, Winkelmann, Goethe, Schiller and Herder, all
of whom expressed in some degree their indebtedness to Leibnitz.
Lotze can be said to have brought philosophy out of the lecture-room
into the market-place of life. By understanding and combining what
was great and valuable in those divided and scattered endeavours, he
became the true successor of Leibnitz.

The age in which Lotze lived and wrote in Germany was not one
peculiarly fitted to appreciate the position he took up. Frequently
misunderstood, yet rarely criticized, he was nevertheless greatly
admired, listened to by devoted hearers and read by an increasing
circle. But this circle never attained to the unity of a philosophical
school. The real meaning of Lotze’s teaching is reached only by patient
study, and those who in a larger or narrower sense call themselves his
followers will probably feel themselves indebted to him more for the
general direction he has given to their thoughts, for the tone he has
imparted to their inner life, for the seriousness with which he has
taught them to consider even small affairs and practical duties, and for
the indestructible confidence with which his philosophy permits them
to disregard the materialism of science, the scepticism of shallow
culture, the disquieting results of philosophical and historical criticism.

See E. Pfleiderer, Lotze’s philosophische Weltanschauung nach ihren
Grundzügen (Berlin, 1882; 2nd ed., 1884); E. von Hartmann, Lotze’s

Philosophie (Leipzig, 1888); O. Caspari, H. Lotze in seiner Stellung zu
der durch Kant begründeten neuesten Geschichte der Philosophie
(Breslau, 1883; 2nd ed., 1894); R. Falckenberg, Hermann Lotze
(Stuttgart, 1901); Henry Jones, A Critical Account of the Philosophy of
Lotze (Glasgow, 1895); Paul Lange, Die Lehre vom Instincte bei Lotze
und Darwin (Berlin, 1896); A. Lichtenstein, Lotze und Wundt (Bern,
1900). (J. T. M.; H. St.)

1 See Vogt, Physiologische Briefe (1845-1847); Moleschott, Der Kreislauf des Lebens
(1852); Büchner, Kraft und Stoff (1855).

LOUBET, ÉMILE FRANÇOIS (1838- ), 7th president
of the French republic, was born on the 30th of December 1838, the son of
a peasant proprietor at Marsanne (Drôme), who was more than once mayor
of Marsanne. He was admitted to the Parisian bar in 1862, and took his
doctorate-in-law next year. He was still a student when he witnessed the
sweeping triumph of the Republican party in Paris at the general election in
1863. He settled down to the exercise of his profession in Montélimar,
where he married in 1869 Marie Louis Picard. He also inherited a small
estate at Grignan. At the crisis of 1870 he became mayor of Montélimar,
and thenceforward was a steady supporter of Gambetta’s policy. Elected to
the Chamber of Deputies in 1876 by Montélimar he was one of the famous
363 who in June 1877 passed the vote of want of confidence in the ministry
of the duc de Broglie. In the general election of October he was re-elected,

local enthusiasm for him being increased by the fact that the government
had driven him from the mayoralty. In the Chamber he occupied himself
especially with education, fighting the clerical system established by the
Loi Falloux, and working for the establishment of free, obligatory and
secular primary instruction. In 1880 he became president of the
departmental council in Drôme. His support of the second Jules Ferry
ministry and his zeal for the colonial expansion of France gave him
considerable weight in the moderate Republican party. He had entered the
Senate in 1885, and he became minister of public works in the Tirard
ministry (December 1887 to March 1888). In 1892 President Sadi Carnot,
who was his personal friend, asked him to form a cabinet. Loubet held the
portfolio of the interior with the premiership, and had to deal with the
anarchist crimes of that year and with the great strike of Carmaux, in which
he acted as arbitrator, giving a decision regarded in many quarters as too
favourable to the strikers. He was defeated in November on the question of
the Panama scandals, but he retained the ministry of the interior in the next
cabinet under Alexandre Ribot, though he resigned on its reconstruction in
January. His reputation as an orator of great force and lucidity of exposition
and as a safe and honest statesman procured for him in 1896 the presidency
of the Senate, and in February 1899 he was chosen president of the republic
in succession to Félix Fauré by 483 votes as against 279 recorded by Jules
Méline, his only serious competitor. He was marked out for fierce
opposition and bitter insult as the representative of that section of the
Republican party which sought the revision of the Dreyfus case. On the day
of President Faure’s funeral Paul Déroulède met the troops under General
Roget on their return to barracks, and demanded that the general should
march on the Élysée. Roget sensibly took his troops back to barracks. At the
Auteuil steeplechase in June the president was struck on the head with a
cane by an anti-Dreyfusard. In that month President Loubet summoned
Waldeck-Rousseau to form a cabinet, and at the same time entreated

Republicans of all shades of opinion to rally to the defence of the state. By
the efforts of Loubet and Waldeck-Rousseau the Dreyfus affair was settled,
when Loubet, acting on the advice of General Galliffet, minister of war,
remitted the ten years’ imprisonment to which Dreyfus was condemned at
Rennes. Loubet’s presidency saw an acute stage of the clerical question,
which was attacked by Waldeck-Rousseau and in still more drastic fashion
by the Combes ministry. The French ambassador was recalled from the
Vatican in April 1905, and in July the separation of church and state was
voted in the Chamber of Deputies. Feeling had run high between France
and England over the mutual criticisms passed on the conduct of the South
African War and the Dreyfus case respectively. These differences were
composed by the Anglo-French entente, and in 1904 a convention between
the two countries secured the recognition of French claims in Morocco in
exchange for non-interference with the English occupation of Egypt.
President Loubet was a typical example of the peasant-proprietor class, and
had none of the aristocratic, not to say monarchical, proclivities of President
Fauré. He inaugurated the Paris Exhibition of 1900, received the tsar
Nicholas II. in September 1901 and paid a visit to Russia in 1902. He also
exchanged visits with King Edward VII., with the king of Italy and the king
of Spain. The king of Spain’s visit in 1905 was the occasion of an attempt
on his life, a bomb being thrown under his carriage as he was proceeding
with his guest to the opera. His presidency came to an end in January 1906,
when he retired into private life.

LOUDON, ERNST GIDEON, Freiherr von (1717-1790),
Austrian soldier, was born at Tootzen in Livonia, on the 2nd of February
1717. His family, of Scottish origin,1 had been settled in that country since
before 1400. His father was a lieutenant-colonel, retired on a meagre
pension from the Swedish service, and the boy was sent in 1732 into the
Russian army as a cadet. He took part in Field Marshal Münnich’s siege of
Danzig in 1734, in the march of a Russian corps to the Rhine in 1735 and in
the Turkish war 1738-1739. Dissatisfied with his prospects he resigned in
1741 and sought military employment elsewhere. He applied first to
Frederick the Great, who declined his services. At Vienna he had better
fortune, being made a captain in Trenck’s free corps. He took part in its
forays and marches, though not in its atrocities, until wounded and taken
prisoner in Alsace. He was shortly released by the advance of the main
Austrian army. His next active service, still under Trenck, was in the
Silesian mountains in 1745, in which campaign he greatly distinguished
himself as a leader of light troops. He was present also at Soor. He retired
shortly afterwards, owing to his distaste for the lawless habits of his
comrades in the irregulars, and after long waiting in poverty for a regular
commission he was at last made a captain in one of the frontier regiments,
spending the next ten years in half-military, half-administrative work in the
Carlstadt district. At Bunich, where he was stationed, he built a church and
planted an oak forest now called by his name. He had reached the rank of
lieutenant-colonel when the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War called him
again into the field. From this point began his fame as a soldier. Soon
promoted colonel, he distinguished himself repeatedly and was in 1757
made a General-feldwacht-meister (major-general of cavalry) and a knight
of the newly founded order of Maria Theresa. In the campaign of 1758
came his first opportunity for fighting an action as a commander-in-chief,
and he used it so well that Frederick the Great was obliged to give up the
siege of Olmütz and retire into Bohemia (action of Dom-stadtl, 30th of

June). He was rewarded with the grade of lieutenant-field-marshal and
having again shown himself an active and daring commander in the
campaign of Hochkirch, he was created a Freiherr in the Austrian nobility
by Maria Theresa and in the peerage of the Holy Roman Empire by her
husband the emperor Francis. Maria Theresa gave him, further, the grand
cross of the order she had founded and an estate near Kuttenberg in
Bohemia. He was placed in command of the Austrian contingent sent to join
the Russians on the Oder. At Kunersdorf he turned defeat into a brilliant
victory, and was promoted Feldzeugmeister and made commander-in-chief
in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. In 1760 he destroyed a whole corps of
Frederick’s army under Fouqué at Landshut and stormed the important
fortress of Glatz. In 1760 he sustained a reverse at Frederick’s hands in the
battle of Liegnitz (Aug. 15th, 1760), which action led to bitter controversy
with Daun and Lacy, the commanders of the main army, who, Loudon
claimed, had left his corps unsupported. In 1761 he operated, as usual, in
Silesia, but he found his Russian allies as timid as they had been after
Kunersdorf, and all attempts against Frederick’s entrenched camp of
Bunzelwitz (see Seven Years’ War) failed. He brilliantly seized his one
fleeting opportunity, however, and stormed Schweidnitz on the night of
Sept. 30/October 1st, 1761. His tireless activity continued to the end of the
war, in conspicuous contrast with the temporizing strategy of Daun and
Lacy. The student of the later campaigns of the Seven Years’ War will
probably admit that there was need of more aggressiveness than Daun
displayed, and of more caution than suited Loudon’s genius. But neither
recognized this, and the last three years of the war are marked by an ever-
increasing friction between the “Fabius” and the “Marcellus,” as they were
called, of the Austrian army.

After the peace, therefore, when Daun became the virtual commander-in-
chief of the army, Loudon fell into the background. Offers were made, by
Frederick the Great amongst others, to induce Loudon to transfer his

services elsewhere. Loudon did not entertain these proposals, although
negotiations went on for some years, and on Lacy succeeding Daun as
president of the council of war Loudon was made inspector-general of
infantry. Dissensions, however, continued between Loudon and Lacy, and
on the accession of Joseph II., who was intimate with his rival, Loudon
retired to his estate near Kuttenberg. Maria Theresa and Kaunitz caused
him, however, to be made commander-in-chief in Bohemia and Moravia in
1769. This post he held for three years, and at the end of this time,
contemplating retirement from the service, he settled again on his estate.
Maria Theresa once more persuaded him to remain in the army, and, as his
estate had diminished in value owing to agrarian troubles in Bohemia, she
repurchased it from him (1776) on generous terms. Loudon then settled at
Hadersdorf near Vienna, and shortly afterwards was made a field-marshal.
Of this Carlyle (Frederick the Great) records that when Frederick the Great
met Loudon in 1776 he deliberately addressed him in the emperor’s
presence as “Herr Feldmarschall.” But the hint was not taken until February
1778.

In 1778 came the War of the Bavarian Succession. Joseph and Lacy were
now reconciled to Loudon, and Loudon and Lacy commanded the two
armies in the field. On this occasion, however, Loudon seems to have in a
measure fallen below his reputation, while Lacy, who was opposed to
Frederick’s own army, earned new laurels. For two years after this Loudon
lived quietly at Hadersdorf, and then the reverses of other generals in the
Turkish War called him for the last time into the field. Though old and
broken in health, he was commander-in-chief in fact as well as in name, and
he won a last brilliant success by capturing Belgrade in three weeks, 1789.
He died within the year, on the 14th of July at Neu-Titschein in Moravia,
still on duty. His last appointment was that of commander-in-chief of the
armed forces of Austria, which had been created for him by the new
emperor Leopold. Loudon was buried in the grounds of Hadersdorf. Eight

years before his death the emperor Joseph had caused a marble bust of this
great soldier to be placed in the chamber of the council of war.

His son Johann Ludwig Alexius, Freiherr von Loudon (1762-1822)
fought in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with credit, and rose to
the rank of lieutenant-field-marshal.

See memoir by v. Arneth in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, s.v.
“Laudon,” and life by G. B. Malleson.

1 His name is phonetically spelt Laudon or Laudohn by Germans, and the latter form
was that adopted by himself and his family. In 1759, however, he reverted to the original
Scottish form.

LOUDOUN, JOHN CAMPBELL, 1st Earl of (1598-
1663), Scottish politician, eldest son of Sir James Campbell of Lawers,
became Baron Loudoun in right of his wife Margaret, granddaughter of
Hugh Campbell, 1st Baron Loudoun (d. 1622). He was created earl on the
12th of May 1633, but in consequence of his opposition to Charles I.’s
church policy in Scotland the patent was stopped in Chancery. In 1637 he
was one of the supplicants against the introduction of the English liturgy;
and with John Leslie, 6th earl of Rothes, he took a leading part in the
promulgation of the Covenant and in the General Assembly which met at
Glasgow in the autumn of 1638. He served under General Leslie, and was
one of the Scottish commissioners at the Pacification of Berwick in June

1639. In November of that year and again in 1640 the Scottish estates sent
Loudoun with Charles Seton, 2nd earl of Dunfermline, to London on an
embassy to Charles I. Loudoun intrigued with the French ambassador and
with Thomas Savile, afterwards earl of Sussex, but without much success.
He was in London when John Stewart, earl of Traquair, placed in Charles’s
hands a letter signed by Loudoun and six others and addressed to Louis
XIII. In spite of his protest that the letter was never sent, and that it would
in any case be covered by the amnesty granted at Berwick, he was sent to
the Tower. He was released in June, and two months later he re-entered
England with the Scottish invading army, and was one of the
commissioners at Ripon in October. In the following August (1641) Charles
opened parliament at Edinburgh in person, and in pursuance of a policy of
conciliation towards the leaders of the Covenant Loudoun was made lord
chancellor of Scotland, and his title of earl of Loudoun was allowed. He
also became first commissioner of the treasury. In 1642 he was sent by the
Scottish council to York to offer to mediate in the dispute between Charles
and the parliament, and later on to Oxford, but in the second of these
instances Charles refused to accept his authority. He was constantly
employed in subsequent negotiations, and in 1647 was sent to Charles at
Carisbrooke Castle, but the “Engagement” to assist the king there made
displeased the extreme Covenanters, and Loudoun was obliged to retract his
support of it. He was now entirely on the side of the duke of Argyll and the
preachers. He assisted in the capacity of lord chancellor at Charles II.’s
coronation at Scone, and was present at Dunbar. He joined in the royalist
rising of 1653, but eventually surrendered to General Monk. His estates
were forfeited by Cromwell, and a sum of money settled on the countess
and her heirs. At the Restoration he was removed from the chancellorship,
but a pension of £1000 granted him by Charles I. in 1643 was still allowed
him. In 1662 he was heavily fined. He died in Edinburgh on the 15th of
March 1663.

The earl’s elder son, James (d. 1684), 2nd earl of Loudoun, passed
his life out of Great Britain, and when he died at Leiden was succeeded
by his son Hugh (d. 1731). The 3rd earl held various high positions in
England and Scotland, being chosen one of the representative peers for
Scotland at the union of the parliaments in 1707. He rendered good
service to the government during the rising of 1715, especially at the
battle of Sheriffmuir, and was succeeded as 4th earl by his son John
(1705-1782), who fought against the Jacobites in 1745, was
commander-in-chief of the British force in America in 1756 and died
unmarried. The title then passed to James Mure Campbell (d. 1786), a
grandson of the 2nd earl, and was afterwards borne by the marquesses
of Hastings, descendants of the 5th earl’s daughter and heiress, Flora
(1780-1840). Again reverting to a female on the death of Henry, 4th
marquess of Hastings, in 1868, it came afterwards to Charles (b. 1855),
a nephew of this marquess, who became 11th earl of Loudoun.

LOUDUN, a town of western France, capital of an arrondissement in
the department of Vienne, on an eminence overlooking a fertile plain, 45 m.
by rail S.W. of Tours. Pop. (1906) 3931. It was formerly surrounded by
walls, of which a single gateway and two towers remain. Of the old castle
of the counts of Anjou which was destroyed under Richelieu, the site now
forming a public promenade, a fine rectangular donjon of the 12th century
is preserved; at its base traces of Roman constructions have been found,
with fragments of porphyry pavement, mosaics and mural paintings. The

Carmelite convent was the scene of the trial of Urban Grandier, who was
burnt alive for witchcraft in 1634; the old Romanesque church of Sainte
Croix, of which he was curé, is now used as a market. The church of St
Pierre-du-Marché, Gothic in style with a Renaissance portal, has a lofty
stone spire. There are several curious old houses in the town. Théophraste
Renaudot (d. 1653), founder of the Gazette de France, was born at Loudun,
where there is a statue of him. The manufacture of lace and upholstery
trimming and of farm implements is carried on, and there is a considerable
trade in agricultural products, wine, &c. Loudun (Laudunum in ancient
times) was a town of importance during the religious wars and gave its
name in 1616 to a treaty favourable to the Protestants.

LOUGHBOROUGH, a market town and municipal borough in
the Loughborough (Mid) parliamentary division of Leicestershire, England,
near the river Soar and on the Loughborough canal. Pop. (1901) 21,508. It
is 110 m. N.N.W. of London by the Midland railway, and is served by the
Great Central and a branch of the London and North-Western railways. The
neighbourhood is a rich agricultural district, and to the S.W. lies the hilly
tract known as Charnwood Forest. The church of All Saints stands on rising
ground, and is a conspicuous object for many miles round; it is of
Decorated work, and the tower is Perpendicular. The other churches are
modern. Public buildings include the town hall and exchange, town offices,
county hall and free library. The grammar school, founded in 1495 under
the charity of Thomas Burton, occupies modern buildings in pleasant

grounds. There is also a girls’ grammar school partly dependent on the same
foundation. The principal industry is hosiery making; there are also
engineering, iron and dye works and bell foundries. The great bell for St
Paul’s cathedral, London, was cast here in 1881. Loughborough was
incorporated in 1888. Area, 3045 acres.

The manor of Loughborough (Lucteburne, Lucteburg, Lughteburgh) was
granted by William the Conqueror to Hugh Lupus, from whom it passed to
the Despensers. In 1226-1227 when it belonged to Hugh Despenser he
obtained various privileges for himself and his men and tenants there,
among which were quittance from suits at the county and hundred courts, of
sheriffs’ aids and of view of frankpledge, and also a market every Thursday
and a fair on the vigil, day and morrow of St Peter ad vincula. The market
rights were purchased by the town in 1880 from the trustees of Thomas
Cradock, late lord of the manor. Edward II. visited the manor several times
when it belonged to his favourite, Hugh Despenser the elder. Among the
subsequent lords were Henry de Beaumont and Alice his wife, Sir Edward
Hastings, created Baron Hastings of Loughborough in 1558, Colonel Henry
Hastings, created baron in 1645, and the earls of Huntingdon. Alexander
Wedderburn was created Baron Loughborough in 1780 when he became
chief justice of the common pleas. During the 19th century most of the
manorial rights were purchased by the local board. Loughborough was at
first governed by a bailiff, afterwards by a local board, and was finally
incorporated in 1888 under a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. It has
never been represented in parliament. Lace-making was formerly the chief
industry, but machines for making lace set up in the town by John
Heathcote were destroyed by the Luddites in 1816, and the manufacture lost
its importance. Bell-founding was introduced in 1840. John Cleveland, the
Royalist poet, was born at Loughborough in 1613, John Howe the painter in
1630 and Richard Pulteney the botanist in 1730.

See Victoria County History, Leicestershire; W. G. D. Fletcher,
Chapters in the History of Loughborough (1883); Sir Thomas Pochin,
“Historical Description of Loughborough” (1770) (vol. viii. of
Bibliotheca topographica Britannica).

LOUGHREA, a market town of Co. Galway, Ireland, pleasantly
situated on the N. shore of Lough Rea, 116 m. W. from Dublin by a branch
from Attymon Junction on the Midland Great Western railway. Pop. (1901),
2815. There are slight remains of an Early English Carmelite friary dating c.
1300, which escaped the Dissolution. Loughrea is the seat of the Roman
Catholic bishop of Clonfert, and has a cathedral built in 1900-1905. A part
of the castle of Richard de Burgh, the founder of the friary, still survives,
and there are traces of the town fortifications. In the neighbourhood are a
cromlech and two ruined towers, and crannogs, or ancient stockaded
islands, have been discovered in the lough. Apart from the surroundings of
the lough, the neighbouring country is peculiarly desolate.

LOUGHTON, an urban district in the Epping parliamentary
division of Essex, England, 11½ m. N.N.E. of Liverpool Street station,
London, by the Great Eastern railway. Pop. (1901), 4730. This is one of the
villages which has become the centre of a residential district, and is
frequented by holiday-makers from London, owing to its proximity to the
pleasant woodland scenery of Epping Forest. It lies on the eastern outskirts
of the Forest, near the river Roding. There are several modern churches.
The lordship of the manor was granted to Waltham Abbey. In the vicinity
are large earthworks, probably of British origin, known as Loughton Camp.

LOUHANS, a town of east-central France in the old province of
Franche-Comté, now capital of an arrondissement in the department of
Saône-et-Loire, 34 m. N.N.E. of Mâcon by road. Pop. (1906), 3216. Its
church has a fine tower of the 15th century, of which the balustrade is
carved so as to form the first words of the Ave Maria. There are also a
hospital of the 17th century with a collection of ancient earthenware, a
town-hall of the 18th century and remains of ramparts of the 16th and 17th
century. The town is the central market of the agricultural plain of Bresse;
chickens form the chief article of commerce. There is also a large felt-hat
manufactory.

LOUIS, or Lewis (from the Frankish Chlodowîch, Chlodwig,
Latinized as Chlodowius, Lodhuwicus, Lodhuvicus, whence—in the
Strassburg oath of 842—O. Fr. Lodhuwigs, then Chlovis, Loys and later
Louis, whence Span. Luiz and—through the Angevin kings—Hungarian
Lájos; cf. Ger. Ludwig or Ludewig, from O. H. Ger. Hluduwîc, Hludwîg,
Ludhuwîg, M. H. Ger. Ludewîc; Ital. Lodovico), a masculine proper name,
meaning “Fame-fight” or “Famous in fight,” from old Frankish chlud, chlod
(O. H. Ger. hlud, hlod), “fame,” and wîch (O. H. Ger. wîc., wîg, A.S. wîg)
“war,” “battle” (cf. Gr. Κλυτόμαχος). The name has been borne by
numerous European sovereigns and others, of whom some are noticed
below in the following order: (1) Roman emperors and Frankish and
German kings, (2) kings of Bavaria, (3) kings of France, (4) kings of
Hungary, (5) kings of Naples, (6) Louis of Nassau. (Louis Philippe, king of
the French, is dealt with separately.)

LOUIS I. (778-840), surnamed the “Pious,” Roman emperor, third
son of the emperor Charlemagne and his wife Hildegarde, was born at

Chasseneuil in central France, and crowned king of Aquitaine in 781. He
received a good education; but as his tastes were ecclesiastical rather than
military, the government of his kingdom was mainly conducted by his
counsellors. Louis, however, gained sound experience in warfare in the
defence of Aquitaine, shared in campaigns against the Saxons and the
Avars, and led an army to Italy in 792. In 794 or 795 he married
Irmengarde, daughter of Ingram, count of Haspen. After the deaths of his
two elder brothers, Louis, at his father’s command, crowned himself co-
emperor at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 11th of September 813, and was formally
associated in the government of the Empire, of which he became sole ruler,
in the following January. He earned the surname of “Pious” by banishing
his sisters and others of immoral life from court; by attempting to reform
and purify monastic life; and by showing great liberality to the church. In
October 816 he was crowned emperor at Reims by Pope Stephen IV.; and at
Aix in July 817, he arranged for a division of his Empire among his sons.
This was followed by a revolt of his nephew, Bernard, king of Italy; but the
rising was easily suppressed, and Bernard was mutilated and killed. The
emperor soon began to repent of this cruelty, and when his remorse had
been accentuated by the death of his wife in 818, he pardoned the followers
of Bernard and restored their estates, and in 822 did public penance at
Attigny. In 819 he married Judith, daughter of Welf I., count of Bavaria,
who in 823 bore him a son Charles, afterwards called the Bald. Judith made
unceasing efforts to secure a kingdom for her child; and with the support of
her eldest step-son Lothair, a district was carved out for Charles in 829.
Discontent at this arrangement increased to the point of rebellion, which
broke out the following year, provoked by Judith’s intrigues with Bernard,
count of Barcelona, whom she had installed as her favourite at court.
Lothair and his brother Pippin joined the rebels, and after Judith had been
sent into a convent and Bernard had fled to Spain, an assembly was held at
Compiègne, when Louis was practically deposed and Lothair became the

real ruler of the Empire. Sympathy was, however, soon aroused for the
emperor, who was treated as a prisoner, and a second assembly was held at
Nimwegen in October 830 when, with the concurrence of his sons Pippin
and Louis, he was restored to power and Judith returned to court.

Further trouble between Pippin and his father led to the nominal transfer
of Aquitaine from Pippin to his brother Charles in 831. The emperor’s plans
for a division of his dominions then led to a revolt of his three sons. Louis
met them in June 833 near Kolmar, but owing possibly to the influence of
Pope Gregory IV., who took part in the negotiations, he found himself
deserted by his supporters, and the treachery and falsehood which marked
the proceedings gave to the place the name of Lügenfeld, or the “field of
lies.” Judith, charged with infidelity, was again banished; Louis was sent
into the monastery of St Medard at Soissons; and the government of the
Empire was assumed by his sons. The emperor was forced to confess his
sins, and declare himself unworthy of the throne, but Lothair did not
succeed in his efforts to make his father a monk. Sympathy was again felt
for Louis, and when the younger Louis had failed to induce Lothair to treat
the emperor in a more becoming fashion, he and Pippin took up arms on
behalf of their father. The result was that in March 834 Louis was restored
to power at St Denis; Judith once more returned to his side and the
kingdoms of Louis and Pippin were increased. The struggle with Lothair
continued until the autumn, when he submitted to the emperor and was
confined to Italy. To make the restoration more complete, a great assembly
at Diedenhofen declared the deposition of Louis to have been contrary to
law, and a few days later he was publicly restored in the cathedral of Metz.
In December 838 Pippin died, and a new arrangement was made by which
the Empire, except Bavaria, the kingdom of Louis, was divided between
Lothair, now reconciled to his father, and Charles. The emperor was
returning from suppressing a revolt on the part of his son Louis, provoked
by this disposition, when he died on the 20th of June 840 on an island in the

Rhine near Ingelheim. He was buried in the church of St Arnulf at Metz.
Louis was a man of strong frame, who loved the chase, and did not shrink
from the hardships of war. He was, however, easily influenced and was
unequal to the government of the Empire bequeathed to him by his father.
No sustained effort was made to ward off the inroads of the Danes and
others, who were constantly attacking the borders of the Empire. Louis,
who is also called Le Débonnaire, counts as Louis I., king of France.

See Annales Fuldenses; Annales Bertiniani; Thegan, Vita Hludowici;
the Vita Hludowici attributed to Astronomus; Ermoldus Nigellus, In
honorem Hludowici imperatoris; Nithard, Historiarum libri, all in the
Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores, Bände i. and ii. (Hanover
and Berlin, 1826 fol.); E. Mühlbacher, Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs
unter den Karolingern (Innsbruck, 1881); and Deutsche Geschichte
unter den Karolingern (Stuttgart, 1886); B. Simson, Jahrbücher des
fränkischen Reichs unter Ludwig dem Frommen (Leipzig, 1874-1876);
and E. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches (Leipzig,
1887-1888).
(A. W. H.*)

LOUIS II. (825-875), Roman emperor, eldest son of the emperor
Lothair I., was designated king of Italy in 839, and taking up his residence
in that country was crowned king at Rome by Pope Sergius II. on the 15th
of June 844. He at once preferred a claim to the rights of an emperor in the
city, which was decisively rejected; but in 850 he was crowned joint

emperor at Rome by Pope Leo IV., and soon afterwards married his cousin,
Engelberga, a daughter of King Louis the German, and undertook the
independent government of Italy. He took the field against the Saracens;
quashed some accusations against Pope Leo; held a diet at Pavia; and on the
death of his father in September 855 became sole emperor. The division of
Lothair’s dominions, by which he obtained no territory outside Italy,
aroused his discontent, and in 857 he allied himself with Louis the German
against his brother Lothair, king of Lorraine, and King Charles the Bald.
But after Louis had secured the election of Nicholas I. as pope in 858, he
became reconciled with his brother, and received some lands south of the
Jura in return for assistance given to Lothair in his efforts to obtain a
divorce from his wife, Teutberga. In 863, on the death of his brother
Charles, Louis received the kingdom of Provence, and in 864 came into
collision with Pope Nicholas I. over his brother’s divorce. The archbishops,
who had been deposed by Nicholas for proclaiming this marriage invalid,
obtained the support of the emperor, who reached Rome with an army in
February 864; but, having been seized with fever, he made peace with the
pope and left the city. In his efforts to restore order in Italy, Louis met with
considerable success both against the turbulent princes of the peninsula and
against the Saracens who were ravaging southern Italy. In 866 he routed
these invaders, but could not follow up his successes owing to the want of a
fleet. So in 869 he made an alliance with the eastern emperor, Basil I., who
sent him some ships to assist in the capture of Bari, the headquarters of the
Saracens, which succumbed in 871. Meanwhile his brother Lothair had died
in 869, and owing to his detention in southern Italy he was unable to
prevent the partition of Lorraine between Louis the German and Charles the
Bald. Some jealousy between Louis and Basil followed the victory at Bari,
and in reply to an insult from the eastern emperor Louis attempted to justify
his right to the title “emperor of the Romans.” He had withdrawn into
Benevento to prepare for a further campaign, when he was treacherously

attacked in his palace, robbed and imprisoned by Adelchis, prince of
Benevento, in August 871. The landing of fresh bands of Saracens
compelled Adelchis to release his prisoner a month later, and Louis was
forced to swear he would take no revenge for this injury, nor ever enter
Benevento with an army. Returning to Rome, he was released from his oath,
and was crowned a second time as emperor by Pope Adrian II. on the 18th
of May 872. He won further successes against the Saracens, who were
driven from Capua, but the attempts of the emperor to punish Adelchis were
not very successful. Returning to northern Italy, he died, somewhere in the
province of Brescia, on the 12th of August 875, and was buried in the
church of St Ambrose at Milan, having named as his successor in Italy his
cousin Carloman, son of Louis the German. Louis was an excellent ruler, of
whom it was said “in his time there was great peace, because every one
could enjoy his own possessions.”

See Annales Bertiniani, Chronica S. Benedicti Casinensis, both in
the Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, Bände i. and iii.
(Hanover and Berlin, 1826 fol.); E. Mühlbacher, Die Regesten des
Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern (Innsbruck, 1881); Th. Sickel, Acta
regum et imperatorum Karolinorum, digesta et enarrata (Vienna,
1867-1868); and E. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches
(Leipzig, 1887-1888).
(A. W. H.*)

LOUIS III. (c. 880-928), surnamed the “Blind,” Roman emperor,
was a son of Boso, king of Provence or Lower Burgundy, and Irmengarde,
daughter of the emperor Louis II. The emperor Charles the Fat took Louis
under his protection on the death of Boso in 887; but Provence was in a
state of wild disorder, and it was not until 890, when Irmengarde had
secured the support of the Bavarian king Arnulf and of Pope Stephen V.,
that Louis was recognized as king. In 900, after the death of the emperor
Arnulf, he went to Italy to obtain the imperial crown. He was chosen king
of the Lombards at Pavia, and crowned emperor at Rome in February 901
by Pope Benedict IV. He gained a temporary authority in northern Italy, but
was soon compelled by his rival Berengar, margrave of Friuli, to leave the
country and to swear he would never return. In spite of his oath he went
again to Italy in 904, where he secured the submission of Lombardy; but on
the 21st of July 905 he was surprised at Verona by Berengar, who deprived
him of his sight and sent him back to Provence, where he passed his days in
enforced inactivity until his death in September 928. He married Adelaide,
possibly a daughter of Rudolph I., king of Upper Burgundy. His eldest son,
Charles Constantine, succeeded to no more than the county of Vienne.

See Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, Bände ix. and x.
(Göttingen, 1862-1886); E. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen
Reichs (Leipzig, 1887-1888); and Gesta Berengarii imperatoris (Halle,
1871); and F. de Gingins-la-Sarra. Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de
Provence et de Bourgogne Jurane (Zürich, 1851).
(A. W. H.*)

LOUIS IV., or V. (c. 1287-1347), surnamed the Bavarian, Roman
emperor and duke of Upper Bavaria, was the second son of Louis II., duke
of Upper Bavaria and count palatine of the Rhine, and Matilda, daughter of
the German king Rudolph I. Having lost his father in 1294 he inherited,
jointly with his elder brother Rudolph, Upper Bavaria and the Palatinate,
but passed his time mainly at the court of the Habsburgs in Vienna, while
his early experiences of warfare were gained in the campaigns of his uncle,
the German king Albert I. He was soon at variance with his brother over
their joint possessions. Albert taking the part of Louis in this quarrel,
Rudolph promised in 1301 to admit his brother to a share in the government
of Bavaria and the Palatinate. When Albert was murdered in May 1308,
Louis became a candidate for the German throne; but his claim was not
strongly supported. The new king, Henry VII., was very friendly with
Rudolph, and as the promise of 1301 had not been carried out, Louis
demanded a partition of their lands. Upper Bavaria was accordingly divided
in 1310, and Louis received the north-western part of the duchy; but
Rudolph refused to surrender any part of the Palatinate. In 1310, on the
death of Stephen I., duke of Lower Bavaria, Louis undertook the
guardianship of his two young sons. This led to a war between the brothers,
which lasted till June 1313, when peace was made at Munich. Many of the
nobles in Lower Bavaria, however, angered at Louis, called in the aid of
Frederick I. (the Fair), duke of Austria; but he was defeated at Gammelsdorf
on the 9th of November 1313, a victory which not only led to peace, but
conferred considerable renown on Louis.

In August 1313 the German throne had again become vacant, and Louis
was chosen at Frankfort on the 20th of October 1314 by a majority of the
electors, and his coronation followed at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 25th of
November. A minority of princes had, however, supported Frederick of
Austria; and a war followed between the rivals, during which Louis was
supported by the cities and the districts of the middle and lower Rhine. His

embarrassments were complicated by a renewal of the dispute with his
brother; but when this had been disposed of in 1317 by Rudolph’s
renunciation of his claims on upper Bavaria and the Palatinate in
consideration of a yearly subsidy, Louis was able to give undivided
attention to the war with Frederick, and obtained several fresh allies. On the
28th of September 1322 a battle was fought at Mühldorf, which ended in a
complete victory for Louis, owing mainly to the timely aid of Frederick IV.
of Hohenzollern, burgrave of Nüremburg. Frederick of Austria was taken
prisoner, but the struggle was continued by his brother Leopold until the
latter’s death in 1326. Attempts to enable the two kings to rule Germany
jointly failed, and about 1326 Frederick returned to Austria, leaving Louis
in undisputed possession of the country. Before this conclusion, however, a
new enemy had taken the field. Supported by Philip V. of France in his
desire to free Italy entirely from German influence, Pope John XXII.
refused to recognize either Frederick or Louis, and asserted his own right to
administer the empire during a vacancy. After the battle of Mühldorf Louis
sent Berthold of Neifen, count of Marstetten, into Italy with an army, which
soon compelled the papal troops to raise the siege at Milan. The pope
threatened Louis with excommunication unless he resigned his kingdom
within three months. The king thereupon appealed to a general council, and
was placed under the papal ban on the 23rd of March 1324, a sentence
which he answered by publishing his charges against the pope. In the
contest Louis was helped by the Minorites, who were upholding against
John the principal of clerical poverty, and by the writings of Marsilius of
Padua (who dedicated to Louis his Defensor pacis), William of Occam,
John of Jandun and others. Taking the offensive, Louis met his Ghibelline
supporters at Trent and reached Italy in March 1327; and in May he
received the Lombard crown at Milan. Although the pope renewed his
fulminations Louis compelled Pisa to surrender, and was hailed with great
rejoicing in Rome. On the 17th of January 1328 he was crowned emperor in

St Peter’s by Sciarra Colonna, a Roman noble; and he answered the
continued attacks of Pope John by pronouncing his deposition, and
proclaiming Peter of Corvara pope as Nicholas V. He then undertook an
expedition against John’s ally, Robert, king of Naples, but, disunion among
his troops and scarcity of money and provisions, drove him again to Rome,
where, finding that his exactions had diminished his popularity, he left the
city, and after passing six months at Pisa, returned to Germany in January
1330. The struggle with the pope was renewed in Germany, and when a
formidable league had been formed against Louis, his thoughts turned to a
reconciliation. He was prepared to assent to very humiliating terms, and
even agreed to abdicate; but the negotiations, which were prolonged by
further demands on the part of the pope, were interrupted by his death in
December 1334. John’s successor, Benedict XII., seemed more anxious to
come to an arrangement, but was prevented from doing so by the influence
of Philip VI. of France. Overtures for peace were made to Philip, but
without success; and in July 1337 Louis concluded an alliance with Edward
III., king of England, and made active preparations for war. During these
years his attention was also occupied by a quarrel with John, king of
Bohemia, over the possession of Tirol, by a campaign in Lower Bavaria,
and a futile expedition against Nicholas I., bishop of Constance. But
although his position was shaken by the indifferent success which attended
these campaigns, it was improved when the electors meeting at Rense in
July 1338 banded themselves together to defend their elective rights, and
when the diet at Frankfort confirmed a decree which declared that the
German king did not need the papal approbation to make his election valid.

Louis devoted considerable thought and time to extending the
possessions of the Wittelsbach family, to which he belonged. Tirol had for
some time been a subject of contention between the emperor and other
princes. The heiress of this county, Margaret Maultasch, had married John
Henry, margrave of Moravia, son of King John of Bohemia. Having

quarrelled with her husband, Margaret fled to the protection of Louis, who
seized the opportunity to declare her marriage void and to unite her in 1342
with his son Louis. The emperor also increased his possessions by his own
marriage. In 1322 his first wife, Beatrice, daughter of Henry III., count of
Glogau, had died after thirteen years of married life, and Louis then married
Margaret, daughter of William III., count of Holland. When her brother,
count William IV., died childless in 1345, the emperor obtained possession
of Holland, Zealand and Friesland. In 1341 he recovered a portion of the
Palatinate, and soon deserted Edward of England and came to terms with
Philip of France. The acquisition of the territories, and especially of Tirol,
had provided Louis with many enemies, prominent among whom were John
of Bohemia and his family, that of Luxemburg. John, therefore, entered into
an alliance with Pope Clement VI. The course of the war which ensued in
Germany was such as to compel the emperor to submit to humiliating
terms, though he stopped short of accepting the election of Charles,
margrave of Moravia (afterwards the emperor Charles IV.) as German king
in July 1346. Charles consequently attacked Tirol; but Louis, who appeared
to have considerable chances of success, died suddenly at a bear-hunt near
Munich on the 11th of October 1347. He was buried in the Frauenkirche at
Munich, where a statue was erected to his memory in 1622 by Maximilian
I., elector of Bavaria, and where a second was unveiled in 1905. He had
seven sons, three of whom were subsequently electors of Brandenburg, and
ten daughters.

Various estimates have been formed of the character of Louis. As a
soldier he possessed skill as well as bravery, but he lacked perseverance and
decision in his political relations. At one time haughtily defying the pope, at
another abjectly craving his pardon, he seems a very inglorious figure; and
the fact that he remained almost undisturbed in the possession of Germany
in spite of the utmost efforts of the popes, is due rather to the political and
intellectual tendencies of the time than to his own good qualities.

Nevertheless he ruled Bavaria with considerable success. He befriended the
towns, encouraged trade and commerce and gave a new system of laws to
the duchy. German took the place of Latin in the imperial charters, and
although not a scholar, the emperor was a patron of learning. Louis was a
man of graceful appearance, with ruddy countenance and prominent nose.

Bibliography.—Many of the authorities for the life and reign of
Louis are found in the Fontes rerum Germanicarum, Bände i. and iv.,
edited by J. F. Böhmer (Stuttgart, 1843-1868). Among these is the Vita
Ludovici IV., by an unknown author. A number of important documents
are found in the Regesta imperii 1314-1347, edited by J. F. Böhmer and
J. Ficker (Innsbruck, 1865); Acta imperii selecta, edited by J. F.
Böhmer and J. Ficker (Innsbruck, 1870); Urkunden zur Geschichte des
Römerzuges Königs Ludwigs des Bayern, edited by J. Ficker
(Innsbruck, 1865); Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte Kaisers
Ludwigs IV., edited by C. Höfler (Munich, 1839); Vatikanische
Urkunden zur Geschichte Kaisers Ludwigs des Bayern, Bände v. and
vi. (Stuttgart, 1877-1888); Vatikanische Akten zur Deutschen
Geschichte in der Zeit Kaisers Ludwigs des Bayern, edited by S.
Riezler (Innsbruck, 1891). In the Forschungen zur Deutschen
Geschichte (Göttingen, 1862-1886), Band xx., is found Urkunden zur
Bairischen und Deutschen Geschichte 1256-1343, edited by S. Riezler;
and in Band xiii. is C. Häutle’s Beiträge zum Itinerar Kaiser Ludwigs.

The following may also be consulted: C. Gewoldus, Defensio
Ludovici IV. contra A. Bzovium (Ingolstadt, 1618); J. G. Herwartus,
Ludovicus IV. imperator defensus (Mainz, 1618); N. Burgundus,
Historia Bavarica sive Ludovicus IV. imperator (Ingolstadt, 1636). The
best modern authorities are F. von Weech, Kaiser Ludwig der Bayer
und König Johann von Böhmen (Munich, 1860); S. Riezler, Die
literarischen Widersacher der Päpste zur Zeit Ludwigs des Bayern

(Leipzig, 1874); C. Mühling, Die Geschichte der Doppelwahl des
Jahres 1314 (Munich, 1882); R. Döbner, Die Auseinandersetzung
zwischen Ludwig IV. dem Bayern und Friedrich dem Schönen von
Oesterreich (Göttingen, 1875); W. Altmann, Der Römerzug Ludwigs
des Bayern (Berlin, 1886); A. Chroust, Beiträge zur Geschichte
Ludwigs des Bayern und seiner Zeit (Gotha, 1877); K. Müller, Der
Kampf Ludwigs des Bayern mit der römischen Curie (Tübingen, 1879-
1880); W. Preger, Der Kirchenpolitische Kampf unter Ludwig dem
Bayern (Munich, 1877); Sievers, Die politischen Beziehungen Kaiser
Ludwigs des Bayern zu Frankreich (Berlin, 1896); Steinberger, Kaiser
Ludwig der Bayer (Münich, 1901); and Ueding, Ludwig der Bayer und
die niederrheinischen Städte (Paderborn, 1904). (A. W. H.*)

LOUIS (804-876) surnamed the “German,” king of the East Franks,
was the third son of the emperor Louis I. and his wife Irmengarde. His early
years were partly spent at the court of his grandfather Charlemagne, whose
special affection he is said to have won. When the emperor Louis divided
his dominions between his sons in 817, Louis received Bavaria and the
neighbouring lands, but did not undertake the government until 825, when
he became involved in war with the Slavonic tribes on his eastern frontier.
In 827 he married Emma, daughter of Welf I., count of Bavaria, and sister
of his stepmother Judith; and he soon began to interfere in the quarrels
arising from Judith’s efforts to secure a kingdom for her own son Charles,
and the consequent struggles of Louis and his brothers with the emperor

Louis I. (q.v.). When the elder Louis died in 840 and his eldest son Lothair
claimed the whole Empire, Louis in alliance with his half-brother, king
Charles the Bald, defeated Lothair at Fontenoy on the 25th of June 841. In
June 842 the three brothers met on an island in the Sâone to negotiate a
peace, and each appointed forty representatives to arrange the boundaries of
their respective kingdoms. This developed into the treaty of Verdun
concluded in August 843, by which Louis received the bulk of the lands of
the Carolingian empire lying east of the Rhine, together with a district
around Spires, Worms and Mainz, on the left bank of the river. His
territories included Bavaria, where he made Regensburg the centre of his
government, Thuringia, Franconia and Saxony. He may truly be called the
founder of the German kingdom, though his attempts to maintain the unity
of the Empire proved futile. Having in 842 crushed a rising in Saxony, he
compelled the Abotrites to own his authority, and undertook campaigns
against the Bohemians, the Moravians and other tribes, but was not very
successful in freeing his shores from the ravages of Danish pirates. At his
instance synods and assemblies were held where laws were decreed for the
better government of church and state. In 853 and the following years Louis
made more than one attempt to secure the throne of Aquitaine, which the
people of that country offered him in their disgust with the cruel misrule of
Charles the Bald. But though he met with sufficient success to encourage
him to issue a charter in 858, dated “the first year of the reign in West
Francia,” treachery and desertion in his army, and the loyalty to Charles of
the Aquitanian bishops brought about the failure of the enterprise, which
Louis renounced by a treaty signed at Coblenz on the 7th of June 860.

In 855 the emperor Lothair died, and was succeeded in Italy by his eldest
son Louis II., and in the northern part of his kingdom by his second son,
Lothair. The comparative weakness of these kingdoms, together with the
disorder caused by the matrimonial troubles of Lothair, afforded a suitable
opening for the intrigues of Louis and Charles the Bald, whose interest was

increased by the fact that both their nephews were without male issue.
Louis supported Lothair in his efforts to divorce his wife Teutberga, for
which he received a promise of Alsace, while Charles opposed the divorce.
But in 865 Louis and Charles meeting near Toul, renewed the peace of
Coblenz, and doubtless discussed the possibility of dividing Lothair’s
kingdom. In 868 at Metz they agreed definitely to a partition; but when
Lothair died in 869, Louis was lying seriously ill, and his armies were
engaged with the Moravians. Charles the Bald accordingly seized the whole
kingdom; but Louis, having recovered, compelled him by a threat of war to
agree to the treaty of Mersen, which divided it between the claimants. The
later years of Louis were troubled by risings on the part of his sons, the
eldest of whom, Carloman, revolted in 861 and again two years later; an
example that was followed by the second son Louis, who in a further rising
was joined by his brother Charles. A report that the emperor Louis II. was
dead led to peace between father and sons. The emperor, however, was not
dead, but a prisoner; and as he was not only the nephew, but also the son-in-
law of Louis, that monarch hoped to secure both the imperial dignity and
the Italian kingdom for his son Carloman. Meeting his daughter Engelberga,
the wife of Louis II., at Trent in 872, Louis made an alliance with her
against Charles the Bald, and in 874 visited Italy doubtless on the same
errand. The emperor, having named Carloman as his successor, died in
August 875, but Charles the Bald reached Italy before his rival, and by
persuading Carloman, when he did cross the Alps, to return, secured the
imperial crown. Louis was preparing for war when he died on the 28th of
September 876 at Frankfort, and was buried at Lorsch, leaving three sons
and three daughters. Louis was in war and peace alike, the most competent
of the descendants of Charlemagne. He obtained for his kingdom a certain
degree of security in face of the attacks of Normans, Hungarians,
Moravians and others. He lived in close alliance with the Church, to which

he was very generous, and entered eagerly into schemes for the conversion
of his heathen neighbours.

See Annales Fuldenses; Annales Bertiniani; Nithard, Historiarum
Libri, all in the Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores, Bände i.
and ii. (Hanover and Berlin, 1826 seq.); E. Dümmler, Geschichte des
ostfränkischen Reiches (Leipzig, 1887-1888); Th. Sickel, Die
Urkunden Ludwigs des Deutschen (Vienna, 1861-1862); E.
Mühlbacher, Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern
(Innsbruck, 1881); and A. Krohn, Ludwig der Deutsche (Saarbrücken,
1872).
(A. W. H.*)

LOUIS I., king of Bavaria (1786-1868), son of the then prince,
afterwards duke and elector, Max Joseph of Zweibrücken and his wife
Princess Augusta of Hesse-Darmstadt ( -1796), was born at Strassburg
on the 25th of August 1786. He received a careful education at home,
afterwards (in 1803) going to the Bavarian national university of Landshut
and to Göttingen. As a young man he was drawn into the Romantic
movement then at its height; but both the classics and contemporary
classical poetry took hold upon his receptive mind (he visited Goethe in
1827). He had himself strong artistic tendencies, though his numerous
poems show but little proof of this, and as a patron of the arts he proved
himself as great as any who had ever occupied a German, throne, and more

than a mere dilettante. His first visit to Italy, in 1804, had an important
influence upon this side of his development.

But even in Italy the crown prince (his father had become elector in 1799
and king of Bavaria in 1805) did not forget his nationality. He soon made
himself leader of the small anti-French party in Bavaria. Napoleon sought
in vain to win him over, and Louis fell more and more out of favour with
him. Napoleon was even reported to have said: “Qui m’empêche de laisser
fusiller ce prince?” Their relations continued to be strained, although in the
campaigns of 1807 and 1809, in which Bavaria was among the allies of
France, Louis won his laurels in the field.

The crown prince was also averse from a Napoleonic marriage, and
preferred to marry (October 12, 1810) the Princess Therese of Saxe-
Hildburghausen (1792-1854). Three daughters and four sons were born of
this marriage, one of whom succeeded him as Maximilian II., while another,
Luitpold, became prince regent of Bavaria on the death of Louis II.

During the time that he was crown prince Louis resided chiefly at
Innsbruck or Salzburg as governor of the circle of the Inn and Salzach. In
1815 he attended the Congress of Vienna, where he was especially occupied
in endeavouring to obtain the restoration of Alsace and Lorraine to
Germany; and later in the year he was with the allies in Paris, using his
influence to secure the return of the art treasures carried off by the French.

After 1815 also the crown prince maintained his anti-French attitude, and
it was mainly his influence that in 1817 secured the fall of Montgelas, the
minister with French sympathies. Opposed to absolutism, Louis took great
interest in the work of organizing the Bavarian constitution (1818) and
defended it against Metternich and the Carlsbad Decrees (1819); he was
also one of the most zealous of the ardent Philhellenes in Germany at the
time. He succeeded to the crown of Bavaria on the 12th of October 1825,

and at once embarked upon a moderate constitutional policy, in which he
found himself in general agreement with the parliament. Although he
displayed a loyal attachment to the Catholic Church, especially owing to his
artistic sympathies, he none the less opposed all its more exaggerated
pretensions, especially as represented by the Jesuits, whom he condemned
as un-German. In the year of his accession he abolished an old edict
concerning the censorship. He also furthered in many ways the internal
administration of the state, and especially that of the finances. His personal
tastes, apart from his activities as a Maecenas, being economical, he
endeavoured also to limit public expenditure, in a way which was not
always a benefit to the country. Bavaria’s power of self-defence especially
was weakened by his economies and by his lack of interest in the military
aspect of things.

He was a warm friend of learning, and in 1826 transferred the university
of Landshut to Munich, where he placed it under his special protection.
Prominent scholars were summoned to it, mostly belonging to the Romantic
School, such as Goerres, Schubert and Schelling, though others were not
discouraged. In the course of his visits to Italy he formed friendships with
famous artists such as Thorwaldsen and Cornelius. He was especially
anxious to obtain works of art, mainly sculpture, for the famous Munich
collections which he started, and in this he had the advantage of the
assistance of the painter Martin Wagner. He also set on foot movements for
excavation and the collection of works of art in Greece, with excellent
results.

Under the influence of the July revolution of 1830, however, he also
began to be drawn into the current of reaction; and though he still declared
himself openly against absolutism, and never took up such a hostile attitude
towards constitutional ideas as his brother-in-law King Frederick William
IV., he allowed the reactionary system of surveillance which commended

itself to the German Confederation after 1830 to be introduced into Bavaria
(see Bavaria: History). He continued, on the other hand, to do much for the
economic development of the country. As a follower of the ideas of
Friedrich List, he furthered the foundation of the Zollverein in the year
1833 and the making of canals. Railways he looked upon as a “necessary
evil.”

In external politics peace was maintained on the whole after 1825.
Temporary diplomatic complications arose between Bavaria and Baden in
connexion with Louis’s favourite project of winning back the part then
belonging to Baden of the old Palatinate, the land of his birth, which was
always very dear to him.

Of European importance was his enthusiasm for the liberation of Greece
from the rule of Turkey. Not only did he erect the Propyläen at Munich in
her honour, but he also helped her in the most generous way both with
money and diplomatic resources. And after his second son Otto had become
king of Greece in 1832, Greek affairs became from time to time the central
point of his foreign policy. In 1835 he made a visit to Greece, partly
political, partly inspired by his old interest in art. But his son proved
unequal to his task, and in 1862 was forced to abdicate (see Otho, king of
Greece). For this unfortunate issue Louis was not without blame; for from
the very first, owing to an exaggerated idealism and love of antiquity, he
had totally misunderstood the national character of the Greeks and the
problems involved in the attempts to govern them by bureaucratic methods.

In Bavaria, too, his government became more and more conservative,
especially after Karl Abel became the head of the ministry in 1837. The
king had not yet, it is true, altogether committed himself to the clerical
ultras, and on the occasion of the dispute about the bishops in Prussia in the
same year had taken up a wise attitude of compromise. But in Bavaria itself
the strict Catholic party influenced affairs more and more decisively. For a

while, indeed, this opposition did not impair the king’s popularity, due to
his amiable character, his extraordinary services in beautifying his capital of
Munich, and to his benevolence (it has been reckoned that he personally
received about 10,000 letters asking for help every year, and that the money
he devoted to charity amounted to about a fifth of his income). The year
1846, however, brought a change which had sad consequences. This was
due to the king’s relations with the Spanish dancer Lola Montez, who
appeared in Munich in October 1846, and soon succeeded by her beauty
and wit in fascinating the king, who was always susceptible to feminine
charms. The political importance of this lay in the fact that the royal
mistress began to use her great influence against the clerical policy of the
Abel ministry. So when the king was preparing the way for ennobling her,
in order to introduce her into court circles, which were unwilling to receive
her, the ministry protested in the famous memorandum of the 11th of
February 1847 against the king’s demand for her naturalization as a
Bavarian, the necessary preliminary to her ennoblement. The position was
still further embittered by the fact that, owing to an indiscretion, the
memorandum became known to the public. Thereupon the king, irritated
and outraged, replaced Abel’s Clerical ministry by a more accommodating
Liberal one under Zu Rhein under which Lola Montez without more
difficulty became Countess Landsberg. Meanwhile, the criticism and
opposition of the people, and especially of the students, was turned against
the new leader of the court of Munich. On top of this came the
revolutionary movement of 1848. The king’s position became more and
more difficult, and under the pressure of popular opposition he was forced
to banish the countess. But neither this nor the king’s liberal proclamation
of the 6th of March succeeded in establishing peace, and in the capital
especially the situation became increasingly threatening. All this made such
a deep impression on the king, that on the 20th of March 1848 he abdicated
in favour of his son Maximilian.

He now retired entirely into private life, and continued to play the
Maecenas magnificently, frequently staying at his villa in Rome, the Villa
Malta, and enjoying extraordinary vigour of mind and body up to the end of
his days. His popularity, which had been shaken by the Montez affair, he
soon recovered, especially among artists. To him Munich owes her finest art
collections and most remarkable buildings. The monarch’s artistic sense led
him not only to adorn his house with a number of works of antique art, but
also to study German medieval art, which he did to good effect. To him
Munich owes the acquisition of the famous Rhenish collection of the
Boisserée brothers. The king also worked with great zeal for the care of
monuments, and the cathedrals of Spires and Cologne enjoyed his special
care. He was also an unfailing supporter of contemporary painting, in so far
as it responded to his romantic tendencies, and he gave a fresh impulse to
the arts of working in metal and glass. As visible signs of his permanent
services to art Munich possesses the Walhalla, the Glyptothek, the two
Pinakotheken, the Odeon, the University, and many other magnificent
buildings both sacred and profane. The rôle which the Bavarian capital now
plays as the leading art centre of Germany would have been an
impossibility without the splendid munificence of Louis I.

He died on the 28th of February 1868 at Nice, and on the 9th of March
was buried in Munich, amid demonstrations of great popular feeling.

The chief part of Louis’s records is contained in seven sealed chests in
the archives of his family, and by the provisions of his will these were not
to be opened till the year 1918. These records contain an extraordinarily
large and valuable mass of historical material, including, as one item, 246
volumes of the king’s diary.

Bibliography.—Of the numerous pamphlets, especially of the years
1846-1848, we need only mention here: P. Erdmann, Lola Montez und
die Jesuiten (1847); Geheimbericht über Bayern (1847), published by
Fowmier in Deutsche Revue, vol. 27. See also F. v. Ritter, Beiträge zur
Regierungsgeschichte König Ludwigs I. (1825-1826) (2 vols., 1853-
1855); Sepp, Ludwig I. Augustus, König von Bayern und das Zeitalter
der Wiedergeburt der Künste (1869; 2nd ed., 1903); Ottokar Lorenz,
Drei Bücher Geschichte (1876; 2nd ed., 1879); K. Th. v. Heigel,
Ludwig I. (1872; 2nd ed., 1888); “Ludwig I. und Martin Wagner,” Neue
historische Vorträge (1883); “Ludwig I.,” Allgemeine deutsche
Biographie (1884); “Ludwig I. als Freund der Geschichte” and
“Kronprinz Ludwig in den Feldzügen von 1807 und 1809,” in
Historische Vorträge und Studien (1887); Die Verlegung der
Universität nach München, Rektoratsrede (1887); “Ludwig I. und die
Münchener Hochschule,” Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte
Bayerns, n.s. (1890); “Ludwig I. als Erzieher seines Volkes,” ib.;
Reidelbach, Ludwig I. und seine Kunstschöpfungen (1887; 2nd ed.,
1888); L. Trose, Ludwig I. in seinen Briefen an seinen Sohn, den König
Otto von Griechenland (1891); L. v. Kobell, Unter den vier ersten
Königen Bayerns (1894); A. Fournier, “Aus den Tagen der Lola
Montez,” Neue Deutsche Rundschau (1901); M. Doeberé, “Ludwig I.
und die deutsche Frage,” Festgabe für Heigel (1903); E. Füchs, Lola
Montez in der Karrikatüre (1904); L. Brunner, Nürnberg 1848-1849
(1907).
(J. Hn.)

LOUIS II., king of Bavaria (1845-1886), son of his predecessor
Maximilian II. and his wife Maria, daughter of Prince William of Prussia,
was born at Nymphenburg on the 25th of August 1845. Together with his
brother Otto, three years younger than himself, Louis received, in
accordance with the wishes of his learned father, a simple and serious
education modelled on that of the German Gymnasien, of which the
classical languages are the chief feature. Of modern languages the crown
prince learnt only French, of which he remained fond all his life. The
practical value of the prince’s training was small. It was not till he was
eighteen years old that he received his first pocket-money, and at that age he
had no ideas about money and its value. Military instruction, physical
exercises and sport, in spite of the crown prince’s strong physique, received
little attention. Thus Louis did not come enough into contact with young
men of his own age, and consequently soon developed a taste for solitude,
which was found at an early age to be combined with the romantic
tendencies and musical and theatrical tastes traditional in his family.

Louis succeeded to the throne on the 10th of March 1864, at the age of
eighteen. The early years of his reign were marked by a series of most
serious political defeats for Bavaria. In the Schleswig-Holstein question,
though he was opposed to Prussia and a friend of Duke Frederick VIII. of
Augustenburg, he did not command the material forces necessary
effectively to resist the powerful policy of Bismarck. Again, in the war of
1866, Louis and his minister von der Pfordten took the side of Austria, and

at the conclusion of peace (August 22) Bavaria had, in addition to the
surrender of certain small portions of her territory, to agree to the
foundation of the North German Confederation under the leadership of
Prussia. The king’s Bavarian patriotism, one of the few steadfast ideas
underlying his policy, was deeply wounded by these occurrences, but he
was face to face with the inevitable, and on the 10th of August wrote a letter
of reconciliation to King William of Prussia. The defeat of Bavaria in 1866
showed clearly the necessity for a reform of the army. Under the new
Liberal ministry of Hohenlohe (December 29, 1866—February 13, 1870)
and under Prauckh as minister of war, a series of reforms were carried
through which prepared for the victories of 1870. As regards his
ecclesiastical policy, though Louis remained personally true to the Catholic
Church, he strove for a greater independence of the Vatican. He maintained
friendly relations with Ignaz von Döllinger, the leader of the more liberal
Catholics who opposed the definition of papal infallibility, but without
extending his protection to the anti-Roman movement of the Old Catholics.
In spite of this the Old Bavarian opposition was so aroused by the
Liberalism of the Hohenlohe ministry that at the beginning of 1870 Louis
had to form a more Conservative cabinet under Count Bray-Steinburg. On
the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War he at once took the side of Prussia,
and gave orders for mobilization. In 1871 it was he who offered the
imperial crown to the king of Prussia; but this was not done on his own
initiative. Bismarck not only determined the king of Bavaria to take the
decisive step which put an end to a serious diplomatic crisis, but actually
drafted the letter to King William which Louis copied and despatched
without changing a word. Louis placed very few difficulties in the way of
the new German Empire under the leadership of Prussia, though his
Bavarian particularism remained unchanged.

Though up till the beginning of the year 1880 he did not cease to give
some attention to state affairs, the king’s interests lay in quite other spheres.

His personal idiosyncrasies had, in fact, developed meanwhile in a most
unhappy direction. His enthusiasm for all that is beautiful soon led him into
dangerous bypaths. It found its most innocent expression in the earliest
years of his reign when he formed an intimate friendship with Richard
Wagner, whom from May 1864 to December 1865 he had constantly in his
company. Louis was entirely possessed by the soaring ideas of the master,
and was energetic in their realization. He not only established Wagner’s
material position at the moment by paying 18,000 gulden of debts for him
and granting him a yearly income of 4000 gulden (afterwards increased to
8000), but he also proceeded to realize the ambitious artistic plans of the
master. A series of brilliant model performances of the Wagnerian music-
dramas was instituted in Munich under the personal patronage of the king,
and when the further plan of erecting a great festival theatre in Munich for
the performance of Wagner’s “music of the future” broke down in the face
of the passive resistance of the local circles interested, the royal enthusiast
conceived the idea of building at Bayreuth, according to Wagner’s new
principles, a theatre worthy of the music-dramas. For a time Louis was
entirely under Wagner’s influence, the fantastic tendencies of whose art cast
a spell over him, and there is extant a series of emotional letters of the king
to Wagner. Wagner, on the whole, used his influence in artistic and not in
political affairs.1 In spite of this the opposition to him became permanent.
Public opinion in Bavaria for the most part turned against him. He was
attacked for his foreign origin, his extravagance, his intrigues, his artistic
utopias, and last but by no means least, for his unwholesome influence over
the king. Louis in the end was compelled to give him up. But the relations
between king and artist were by no means at an end. In face of the war
which was imminent in 1866, and in the midst of the preparation for war,
the king hastened in May to Triebschen, near Lucerne, in order to see
Wagner again.2 In 1868 they were seen together in public for the last time at
the festival performances in Munich. In 1876 Wagner’s Ring des

Nibelungen was performed for the first time at Bayreuth in the presence of
the king. Later, in 1881, the king formed a similar friendship with Joseph
Kainz the actor, but it soon came to an end. In January 1867 the young king
became betrothed to Duchess Sophie of Bavaria (afterwards Duchesse
d’Alençon), daughter of Duke Max and sister of the empress of Austria; but
the betrothal was dissolved in October of the same year.

Though even in his later years he remained interested in lofty and
intellectual pursuits, as may be gathered, apart from his enthusiasm for art
and nature, from his wide reading in history, serious poetry and philosophy,
yet in his private life there became increasingly marked the signs of moral
and mental weakness which gradually gained the mastery over his once
pure and noble nature. A prominent feature was his blind craving for
solitude. He cut himself off from society, and avoided all intercourse with
his family, even with his devotedly affectionate mother. With his ministers
he came to communicate in writing only. At the end he was surrounded only
by inferior favourites and servants. His life was now spent almost entirely
in his castles far from the capital, which irked him more and more, or in
short and hasty journeys, in which he always travelled incognito. Even the
theatre he could now only enjoy alone. He arranged private performances in
his castles or in Munich at fabulous cost, and appointed an official poet to
his household. Later his avoidance of society developed into a dread of it,
accompanied by a fear of assassination and delusions that he was being
followed.

Side by side with this pathological development his inborn self-
consciousness increased apace, turning more and more to megalomania, and
impelling the weak-willed monarch to those extraordinary displays of
magnificence which can still be admired to-day in the castles built or
altered by him, such as Berg on the Starnberger See, Linderhof,
Herrenchiemsee, Hohenschwangau, Neuschwanstein, &c., which are among

the most splendid buildings in Germany. It is characteristic of the
extravagance of the king’s ideas that he adopted as his model the style of
Louis XIV. and fell into the habit of imitating the Roi Soleil. He no longer
stayed for any length of time in one castle. Often he scoured the country in
wild nocturnal rides, and madness gained upon him apace. His mania for
buying things and making presents was comparatively harmless, but more
serious matters were the wild extravagance which in 1880 involved him in
financial ruin, his fits of destructive rage, and the tendency to the most cruel
forms of abnormal vice. None the less, at the time when the king’s mental
weakness was increasing, his character still retained lovable traits—his
simple sense of beauty, his kindliness, and his highly developed
understanding of art and artistic crafts. Louis’s love of beauty also brought
material profit to Bavaria.

But the financial and political dangers which arose from the king’s way
of life were so great that interference became necessary. On the 8th of June
1886 medical opinion declared him to be affected with chronic and
incurable madness and he was pronounced incapable of governing. On the
10th of June his uncle, Prince Luitpold, assumed the regency, and after
violent resistance the late king was placed under the charge of a mental
specialist. On the 13th of June 1886 he met with his death by drowning in
the Starnberger See, together with his doctor von Gudden, who had
unwisely gone for a walk alone with his patient, whose physical strength
was enormous. The details of his death will never be fully known, as the
only possible eye-witness died with him. An examination of the brain
revealed a condition of incurable insanity, and the faculty submitted a report
giving the terrible details of his malady. Louis’s brother Otto, who
succeeded him as king of Bavaria, was also incurably insane.

Bibliography.—K. v. Heigel, Ludwig II. (1893); Luise v. Kobell,
Unter den vier ersten Königen Bayerns (1894); C. Bujer, Ludwig II.

(1897); Luise v. Kobell, “Wilhelm I. und Ludwig II.” Deutsche Revue,
22; Ludwig II. und die Kunst (1898); Ludwig II. und Bismarck (1870,
1899); Anonym, Endlich völlige Klarheit über den Tod des Königs
Ludwig II. ... (1900); Freiherr v. Völderndorff, “Aus meiner Hofzeit,”
in Velhagen und Klasings Monatshefte (1900); Francis Gerard, The
Romance of Ludwig II. of Bavaria; J. Bainville, Louis II. de Bavière
(Paris, 1900); E. v. Possart, Die Separatvorstellungen von König
Ludwig II. (1901); O. Bray-Steinburg, Denkwürdigkeiten (1901); S.
Röcke, Ludwig II. und Richard Wagner (1903); W. Busch, Die Kämpfe
über Reichsverfassung und Kaisertum (1906); Chlodwig Hohenlohe,
Denkwürdigkeiten (2 vols., 1907); A. v. Ruville, Bayern und die
Wiederaufrichtung des Deutschen Reiches (1909); K. A. v. Müller,
Bayern im Jahre 1866 und die Berufung des Fürsten Hohenlohe
(1909); G. Kuntzel, Bismarck und Bayern in der Zeit der
Reichsgründung (1910); Hesselbarth, Die Enstehung des deutsch-
framözischen Krieges (1910); W. Strohmayer, “Die Ahnentafel
Ludwigs II. und Ottos I.,” Archiv für Rassen- und
Gesellschaftsbiologie, vol. vii. (1910). (J. Hn.)

1 It was on Wagner’s advice that the king appointed Hohenlohe prime minister in 1866.
See Hohenlohe-Schillingfurst, Prince Chlodwig zu, under Hohenlohe. [Ed.]

2 Hohenlohe (Denkwürdigkeiten) comments on the fact that the king did not even take
the trouble to review the troops proceeding to the war. [Ed.]

LOUIS II.1 (846-879), king of France, called “le Bègue” or “the
Stammerer,” was a son of Charles II. the Bald, Roman emperor and king of
the West Franks, and was born on the 1st of November 846. After the death
of his elder brother Charles in 866 he became king of Aquitaine, and in
October 877 he succeeded his father as king of the West Franks, but not as
emperor. Having made extensive concessions to the nobles both clerical and
lay, he was crowned king by Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, on the 8th of
December following, and in September 878 he took advantage of the
presence of Pope John VIII. at the council of Troyes to be consecrated
afresh. After a feeble and ineffectual reign of eighteen months Louis died at
Compiègne on the 10th or 11th of April 879. The king is described as “un
homme simple et doux, aimant la paix, la justice et la religion.” By his first
wife, Ansgarde, a Burgundian princess, he had two sons, his successors,
Louis III. and Carloman; by his second wife, Adelaide, he had a
posthumous son, Charles the Simple, who also became king of France.
(A. W. H.*)

1 The emperor Louis I. is counted as Louis I., king of France.

LOUIS III. (c. 863-882), king of France, was a son of Louis II. and
with his brother Carloman succeeded his father as king in April 879. A
strong party, however, cast some doubts upon the legitimacy of the young
princes, as the marriage of their parents had not been recognized by the
emperor Charles the Bald; consequently it was proposed to offer the crown

to the East Frankish ruler Louis, a son of Louis the German. But this plan
came to nothing, and in September 879 the brothers were crowned at
Ferrières by Ansègisus, archbishop of Sens. A few months later they divided
their kingdom, Louis receiving the part of France north of the Loire. They
acted together against the Northmen, over whom in August 881 they gained
a memorable victory. They also turned against Boso who had been set up as
king in Burgundy and Provence. On the 5th of August 882 Louis died at St
Denis. He left no sons and Carloman became sole king.
(A. W. H.*)

LOUIS IV. (921-954), king of France, surnamed “d’Outremer”
(Transmarinus), was the son of Charles III. the Simple. In consequence of
the imprisonment of his father in 922, his mother Odgiva (Eadgyfu), sister
of the English king Æthelstan, fled to England with the young Louis—a
circumstance to which he owes his surname. On the death of the usurper
Rudolph (Raoul), Ralph of Burgundy, Hugh the Great, count of Paris, and
the other nobles between whom France was divided, chose Louis for their
king, and the lad was brought over from England and consecrated at Laon
on the 19th of June 936. Although his de facto sovereignty was confined to
the town of Laon and to some places in the north of France, Louis displayed
a zeal beyond his years in procuring the recognition of his authority by his
turbulent vassals. The beginning of his reign was marked by a disastrous
irruption of the Hungarians into Burgundy and Aquitaine (937). In 939
Louis became involved in a struggle with the emperor Otto the Great on the
question of Lorraine, the nobles of which district had sworn an oath of

fidelity to the king of France. When Louis married Gerberga, sister of Otto,
and widow of Giselbert, duke of Lorraine, there seemed to be a fair
prospect of peace; but the war was resumed, Otto supporting the rebel lords
of the kingdom of France, and peace was not declared until 942, at the
treaty of Visé-sur-Meuse. On the death of William Longsword, duke of
Normandy, who had been assassinated by Arnulf, count of Flanders, in
December 942, Louis endeavoured to obtain possession of the person of
Richard, the young son and heir of the late duke. After an unsuccessful
expedition into Normandy, Louis fell into the hands of his adversaries, and
was for some time kept prisoner at Rouen (945), and subsequently handed
over to Hugh the Great, who only consented to release him on condition
that he should surrender Laon. Menaced, however, by Louis’ brother-in-law,
Otto the Great, and excommunicated by the council of Ingelheim (948), the
powerful vassal was forced to make submission and to restore Laon to his
sovereign. The last years of the reign were troubled by fresh difficulties
with Hugh the Great and also by an irruption of the Hungarians into the
south of France. Louis died on the 10th of September 954, and was
succeeded by his son Lothair.

The chief authority for the reign is the chronicler Flodoard. See also
Ph. Lauer, La Règne de Louis IV d’Outre-Mer (Paris, 1900); and A.
Heil, Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Otto dem Grossen und
Ludwig IV. von Frankreich (Berlin, 1904).
(R. Po.)

LOUIS V. (967-987), king of France, succeeded his father Lothair in
March 986 at the age of nineteen, and finally embroiled the Carolingian
dynasty with Hugh Capet and Adalberon, archbishop of Reims. From the
absence of any important event in his one year’s reign the medieval
chroniclers designated him by the words “qui nihil fecit,” i.e. “le Fainéant”
or “do-nothing.” Louis died in May 987, his mother Emma being accused
of having poisoned him. He had married Adelaide, sister of Geoffrey
Grisegonelle, count of Anjou, but had no issue. His heir by blood was
Charles, duke of Lower Lorraine, son of Louis IV., but the defection of the
bishops and the treason of Adalberon (Ascelinus), bishop of Laon, assured
the success of Hugh Capet.

See F. Lot, Les Derniers Carolingiens (Paris, 1891); and the Recueil
des actes de Lothaire et de Louis V, edited by L. Halphen and F. Lot
(1908).
(R. Po.)

LOUIS VI. (1081-1137), king of France, surnamed “the Fat,” was
the son of Philip I. of France and Bertha of Holland. He was also surnamed
the “Wide-awake” and “the Bruiser,” and lost none of his energy when he
earned the nickname by which he is known in history. In 1098 Louis was
made a knight, and about the same time was associated with his father in
the government, which the growing infirmities of Philip left more and more
to his son, in spite of the opposition of Bertrada, the queen, whose criminal
union with Philip had brought the anathema of the church. From 1100 to

1108 Louis by his victorious wars on the English and brigands had secured
the army on his side, while the court supported Bertrada. Unable to make
headway against him in war she attempted to poison him, and contemporary
chroniclers attributed to this poison the pallor of his face, which seems to
have been in remarkable contrast to his stalwart, and later his corpulent
figure. Louis’ reign is one of the most important in the history of France. He
is little less than the second founder of the Capetian dynasty. When the
feeble and incompetent Philip I. died (29th of July 1108) Louis was faced
by feudal barons as powerful as himself, and ready to rise against him. He
was forced to have himself hurriedly crowned at Orleans, supported by a
handful of vassals and some ecclesiastics. As king he continued the policy
he had followed during the previous eight years, of securing the roads
leading to Paris by putting down feudal brigands and destroying their
strongholds in the Île-de-France. The castle of the most notorious of these,
Hugues du Puiset, was three times taken and burned by the king’s men, but
Hugues was spared to go back each time to his robber life, until he died on
a crusade. In the north, Thomas de Marle, son of Enguerrand de Coucy,
carried on a career of rapine and murder for almost thirty years before the
king succeeded in taking him prisoner (1130). Twenty-four years of
continuous war finally rooted out the robber barons who lived on the
plunder of the roads leading to Paris: the lords of Montlhéri, who
commanded the roads to Orleans, Melun and the south, those of
Montmorency near St Denis on the north (who had to restore what they had
robbed the abbey of St Denis), those of Le Puiset toward the west, on the
way to Chartres, and many others. Parallel with this consolidation of his
power in the ancestral domains Louis met energetically the Anglo-Norman
danger, warring with Henry I. of England for twenty-five years. After the
victory of Tinchebray (1106) Louis supported the claims of William Clito,
son of Robert, duke of Normandy, against Henry I. A ruthless war followed,
in which Louis was at times reduced to the sorest straits. In 1119, at a

council held at Reims under the presidency of Pope Calixtus II., the
enemies were reconciled; but William Clito’s claims were not satisfied, and
in 1123 war began again on a larger scale. Henry I. induced the emperor
Henry V. to join in the attack upon France; and, his heir having been
drowned in the loss of the “White Ship,” won the count of Anjou by
marrying his only daughter Matilda to Geoffrey, the Angevin heir (1127).
The invasion of Henry V. was met by something like a national army, which
gathered under Louis at Reims. “For a few days at least, the lord of the Île-
de-France was truly a king of France” (Luchaire). Suger proudly gives the
list of barons who appeared. Henry V. came no farther than Metz. Royalty
had won great prestige. Even Theobald, count of Chartres, the king’s
greatest enemy, the soul of feudal coalitions, came with his contingent.
Shortly afterwards (1126), Louis was able to overawe the great count of
Aquitaine, William IX., and force his vassal, the count of Auvergne, to treat
justly the bishop of Clermont. In Flanders Louis interfered upon the
assassination of Charles the Good. He caused the barons to elect as their
count in Arras the same William Clito who claimed Normandy, and who
was closely bound to the king. For a while Louis had Flanders absolutely at
his disposal, but he had hardly left William alone (1127) when his brutal
oppression roused both towns and nobles, who declared that Louis had no
right to interfere in Flanders. The death of William Clito, and a savage war
with his own seneschal, prevented Louis from effectually resenting this
attitude; but Thierry of Alsace, the new count, consented in 1128 to receive
from Louis the investiture of all his French fiefs, and henceforth lived on
good terms with him. In all his wars—those mentioned are but a part of
them—Louis fought in person. Proud of his strength, reckless in the charge
as on the march, plunging into swollen rivers, entering blazing castles, he
gained the reputation of a national hero, the protector of the poor, the
church, the peasants and the towns. The communal movement grew during
his reign, and he encouraged it on the fiefs of his vassals in order to weaken

them; but the title “Father of the Communes” by which he was known in
history is not deserved, though he did grant some privileges to towns on his
domains. Neither was Louis the author of the movement for the
emancipation of the serfs, as was formerly claimed. His attitude toward the
movement was like that of his predecessors and contemporaries, to favour
emancipation when it promised greater chance of profit, greater scope for
exploitation of the peasants; otherwise to oppose it. He was a great
benefactor to the church, aided the new, reformed monastic congregations
of Cîteau, Prémontré and Fontevrault, and chose his two chief ministers
from the clergy. Étienne de Garlande, whom Louis raised from obscurity to
be archdeacon of Notre Dame at Paris, chancellor and seneschal of France,
was all-powerful with the king from 1108 to 1127. His relatives
monopolized the highest offices of the state. But the queen Adelaide
became his enemy; both Ivo of Chartres and St Bernard bitterly attacked
him; and the king suddenly stripped him of all his offices and honours.
Joining the rebellious barons, Étienne then led a bitter war against the king
for three years. When Louis had reduced him to terms he pardoned him and
restored him to the chancellorship (1132), but not to his old power. Suger
(q.v.), administrator of St Denis, enters the scene toward the close of this
reign, but his great work belongs to the next. Louis VI. died on the 1st of
August 1137, just a few days after his son, Louis the Young, had set out for
the far south-west, the Aquitaine which had been won by the marriage with
Eleanor. His wife was Adelaide, or Alice, daughter of Humbert II., count of
Savoy, by whom he had seven sons and a daughter.

See A. Luchaire, Louis le Gros, annales de sa vie et son règne
(1890), and the same writer’s volume, Les Premiers Capétiens, in E.
Lavisse’s Histoire de France.
(J. T. S.*)

LOUIS VII. (c. 1121-1180), king of France, son of Louis VI. the
Fat, was associated with his father and anointed by Innocent II. in 1131. In
1137 he succeeded his father, and in the same year married at Bordeaux
Eleanor, heiress of William II., duke of Aquitaine. In the first part of his
reign he was vigorous and jealous of his prerogatives, but after his crusade
his religiosity developed to such an extent as to make him utterly
inefficient. His accession was marked by no disturbances, save the risings
of the burgesses of Orleans and of Poitiers, who wished to organize
communes. But soon he came into violent conflict with Pope Innocent II.
The archbishopric of Bourges became vacant, and the king supported as
candidate the chancellor Cadurc, against the pope’s nominee Pierre de la
Châtre, swearing upon relics that so long as he lived Pierre should never
enter Bourges. This brought the interdict upon the king’s lands. At the same
time he became involved in a war with Theobald, count of Champagne, by
permitting Rodolphe (Raoul), count of Vermandois and seneschal of France,
to repudiate his wife, Theobald’s niece, and to marry Petronille of
Aquitaine, sister of the queen of France. The war, which lasted two years
(1142-44), was marked by the occupation of Champagne by the royal army
and the capture of Vitry, where many persons perished in the burning of the
church. Geoffrey the Handsome, count of Anjou, by his conquest of
Normandy threatened the royal domains, and Louis VII. by a clever
manœuvre threw his army on the Norman frontier and gained Gisors, one of
the keys of Normandy. At his court which met in Bourges Louis declared on

Christmas Day 1145 his intention of going on a crusade. St Bernard assured
its popularity by his preaching at Vézelay (Easter 1146), and Louis set out
from Metz in June 1147, on the overland route to Syria. The expedition was
disastrous, and he regained France in 1149, overcome by the humiliation of
the crusade. In the rest of his reign he showed much feebleness and poor
judgment. He committed a grave political blunder in causing a council at
Beaugency (on the 21st of March 1152) to annul his marriage with Eleanor
of Aquitaine, under pretext of kinship, but really owing to violent quarrels
during the crusade. Eleanor married Henry II. of England in the following
May, and brought him the duchy of Aquitaine. Louis VII. led a half-hearted
war against Henry for having married without the authorization of his
suzerain; but in August 1154 gave up his rights over Aquitaine, and
contented himself with an indemnity. In 1154 Louis married Constance,
daughter of the king of Castile, and their daughter Marguerite he affianced
imprudently by the treaty of Gisors (1158) to Henry, eldest son of the king
of England, promising as dowry the Vexin and Gisors. Five weeks after the
death of Constance, on the 4th of October 1160, Louis VII. married Adèle
of Champagne, and Henry II. to counterbalance the aid this would give the
king of France, had the marriage of their infant children celebrated at once.
Louis VII. gave little sign of understanding the danger of the growing
Angevin power, though in 1159 he made an expedition in the south to aid
Raymond V., count of Toulouse, who had been attacked by Henry II. At the
same time the emperor Frederick I. in the east was making good the
imperial claims on Arles. When the schism broke out, Louis took the part of
the pope Alexander III., the enemy of Frederick, and after two comedy-like
failures of Frederick to meet Louis VII. at Saint Jean de Losne (on the 29th
of August and the 22nd of September 1162), Louis definitely gave himself
up to the cause of Alexander, who lived at Sens from 1163 to 1165.
Alexander gave the king, in return for his loyal support, the golden rose.
Louis VII. received Thomas Becket and tried to reconcile him with King

Henry II. He supported Henry’s rebellious sons, but acted slowly and
feebly, and so contributed largely to the break up of the coalition (1173-
1174). Finally in 1177 the pope intervened to bring the two kings to terms at
Vitry. By his third wife, Adèle, Louis had an heir, the future Philip
Augustus, born on the 21st of August 1165. He had him crowned at Reims
in 1179, but, already stricken with paralysis, he himself was not able to be
present at the ceremony, and died on the 18th of September 1180. His reign
from the point of view of royal territory and military power, was a period of
retrogression. Yet the royal authority had made progress in the parts of
France distant from the royal domains. More direct and more frequent
connexion was made with distant feudatories, a result largely due to the
alliance of the clergy with the crown. Louis thus reaped the reward for
services rendered the church during the least successful portion of his reign.

See R. Hirsch, Studien zur Geschichte König Ludwigs VII. von
Frankreich (1892); A. Cartellieri, Philipp II. August von Frankreich bis
zum Tode seines Vaters, 1165-1180 (1891); and A. Luchaire in E.
Lavisse’s Histoire de France, tome iii. 1st part, pp. 1-81.
(J. T. S.*)

LOUIS VIII. (1187-1226), king of France, eldest son of Philip
Augustus and of Isabella of Hainaut, was born in Paris on the 5th of
September 1187. Louis was short, thin, pale-faced, with studious tastes,
cold and placid temper, sober and chaste in his life. He left the reputation of
a saint, but was also a warrior prince. In 1213 he led the campaign against

Ferrand, count of Flanders; in 1214, while Philip Augustus was winning the
victory of Bouvines, he held John of England in check, and was victorious
at La Roche-aux-Moines. In the autumn of 1215 Louis received from a
group of English barons, headed by Geoffrey de Mandeville, a request to
“pluck them out of the hand of this tyrant” (John). Some 7000 French
knights were sent over to England during the winter and two more
contingents followed, but it was only after twenty-four English hostages
had arrived in Paris that Louis himself prepared to invade England. The
expedition was forbidden by the papal legate, but Louis set out from Calais
on the 20th and landed at Stonor on the 22nd of May 1216. In three months
he had obtained a strong foothold in eastern England, and in the end of July
he laid siege to Dover, while part of his army besieged Windsor with a view
to securing the safety of London. The pretexts on which he claimed the
English crown were set down in a memorandum drawn up by French
lawyers in 1215. These claims—that John had forfeited the crown by the
murder of his nephew, Arthur of Brittany, and that the English barons had
the right to dispose of the vacant throne—lost their plausibility on the death
of King John and the accession of his infant son as Henry III. in October
1216. The papal legate, Gualo, who had forbidden the enterprise, had
arrived in England at the same time as Louis. He excommunicated the
French troops and the English rebels, and Henry III. found a valiant
defender in William Marshal, earl of Pembroke. After the “Fair of Lincoln,”
in which his army was defeated, Louis was compelled to resign his
pretensions, though by a secret article of the treaty of Lambeth (September
1217) he secured a small war indemnity. Louis had assisted Simon de
Montfort in his war against the Albigenses in 1215, and after his return to
France he again joined the crusade. With Simon’s son and successor,
Amauri de Montfort, he directed the brutal massacre which followed the
capture of Marmande. Philip II., suspicious of his son until the close of his
life, took precautions to assure his obedience, narrowly watched his

administration in Artois, which Louis held from his mother Isabella, and,
contrary to the custom of the kings of France, did not associate his son with
him by having him crowned. Philip Augustus dying on the 14th of July
1223, Louis VIII. was anointed at Reims on the 6th of August following. He
surrounded himself with councillors whom his father had chosen and
formed, and continued his father’s policy. His reign was taken up with two
great designs: to destroy the power of the Plantagenets, and to conquer the
heretical south of France. An expedition conquered Poitou and Saintonge
(1224); in 1226 he led the crusade against the Albigenses in the south,
forced Avignon to capitulate and received the submission of Languedoc.
While passing the Auvergne on his return to Paris, he was stricken with
dysentery, and died at Montpensier on the 8th of November 1226. His reign,
short as it was, brought gains both to the royal domains and to the power of
the crown over the feudal lords. He had married in 1200 Blanche of Castile,
daughter of Alphonso IX. of Castile and granddaughter of Henry II. of
England, who bore him twelve children; his eldest surviving son was his
successor, Louis IX.

See C. Petit-Dutaillis, Étude sur la vie et le règne de Louis VIII.
(Paris, 1894); and E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, tome iii. (1901).
(M. Br.)

LOUIS IX. (1214-1270), king of France, known as Saint Louis, was
born on the 25th of April 1214, and was baptized at Poissy. His father,
Louis VIII., died in 1226, leaving the first minority since the accession of

the Capetians, but his mother, Queen Blanche of Castile, proved more than
a match for the feudal nobility. She secured her son’s coronation at Reims
on the 29th of November 1226; and, mainly by the aid of the papal legate,
Romano Bonaventura, bishop of Porto (d. 1243), and of Thibaut IV., count
of Champagne, was able to thwart the rebellious plans of Pierre Mauclerc,
duke of Brittany, and Philippe Hurepel, a natural son of Philip Augustus.
Mauclerc’s opposition was not finally overcome, however, until 1234. Then
in 1236 Thibaut, who had become king of Navarre, turned against the
queen, formed an alliance with Brittany, marrying his daughter without
royal consent to Jean le Roux, Mauclerc’s son, and attempted to make a
new feudal league. The final triumph of the regent was shown when the
king’s army assembled at Vincennes. His summons met with such general
and prompt obedience as to awe Thibaut into submission without striking a
blow. Thus the reign of Louis IX. began with royal prerogatives fully
maintained; the kingdom was well under control, and Mauclerc and Thibaut
were both obliged to go on crusade. But the influence of the strong-willed
queen-mother continued to make itself felt to the close of her life. Louis IX.
did not lack independence of character, but his confidence in his mother had
been amply justified and he always acted in her presence like a child. This
confidence he withheld from his wife, Margaret, daughter of Raymond
Berenger, count of Provence, whom he married at Sens in May 1234. The
reign was comparatively uneventful. A rising of the nobles of the south-
west, stirred up by Isabella, widow of King John of England, and her
husband, Hugh de Lusignan, count of the Marche, upon the occasion of the
investment of Alphonse of Poitiers with the fiefs left him by Louis VIII. as
a result of the Albigensian crusade, reached threatening dimensions in 1242,
but the king’s armies easily overran Count Hugh’s territories, and defeated
Henry III. of England, who had come to his aid, at Saintes. Isabella and her
husband were forced to submit, and Raymond VII., count of Toulouse,
yielded without resistance upon the advent of two royal armies, and

accepted the peace of Lorris in January 1243. This was the last rising of the
nobles in Louis’s reign.

At the end of 1244, during an illness, Louis took the cross. He had
already been much distressed by the plight of John of Brienne, emperor at
Constantinople, and bought from him the crown of thorns, parts of the true
cross, the holy lance, and the holy sponge. The Sainte Chapelle in Paris still
stands as a monument to the value of these relics to the saintly king. But the
quarrel between the papacy and the emperor Frederick II., in which Louis
maintained a watchful neutrality—only interfering to prevent the capture of
Innocent IV. at Lyons—and the difficulties of preparation, delayed the
embarkation until August 1248. His defeat and capture at Mansura, in
February 1250, the next four years spent in Syria in captivity, in diplomatic
intrigues, and finally in raising the fortifications of Caesarea and Joppa,—
these events belong to the history of the crusades (q.v.). His return to France
was urgently needed, as Blanche of Castile, whom he had left as regent, had
died in November 1252, and upon the removal of her strong hand feudal
turbulence had begun to show itself.

This period between his first and second crusades (1254-1269) is the real
age of Saint Louis in the history of France. He imposed peace between
warring factions of his nobility by mere moral force, backed up by
something like an awakened public opinion. His nobles often chafed under
his unrelenting justice but never dared rebel. The most famous of his
settlements was the treaty of Paris, drawn up in May 1258 and ratified in
December 1259, by which the claims of Henry III. of England were
adjusted. Henry renounced absolutely Normandy, Anjou, Touraine, Maine
and Poitou, and received, on condition of recognizing Louis as liege
suzerain, all the fiefs and domains of the king of France in the dioceses of
Limoges, Cahors and Perigueux, and the expectation of Saintonge south of
the Charente, and Agenais, if they should fall to the crown of France by the

death of Alphonse of Poitiers. In addition, Louis promised to provide Henry
with sufficient money to maintain 500 knights for two years. This treaty
was very unpopular in France, since the king surrendered a large part of
France that Henry had not won; but Louis was satisfied that the absolute
sovereignty over the northern provinces more than equalled the loss in the
south. Historians still disagree as to its wisdom. Louis made a similar
compromise with the king of Aragon in the treaty of Corbeil, 1258,
whereby he gave up the claims of kings of France to Roussillon and
Barcelona, which went back to the conquest of Charlemagne. The king of
Aragon in his turn gave up his claims to part of Provence and Languedoc,
with the exception of Narbonne. Louis’s position was strikingly shown in
1264 when the English barons submitted their attempt to bind Henry III. by
the Provisions of Oxford to his arbitration. His reply in the “Dit” or Mise of
Amiens was a flat denial of all the claims of the barons and failed to avert
the civil war. Louis was more successful in preventing feuds between his
own nobles: between the counts of Brittany and Champagne over the
succession to Navarre; the dauphin of Vienne (Guigues VII.) and Charles of
Anjou; the count of Burgundy and the count of Châlons; Henry of
Luxemburg and the duke of Lorraine with the count of Bar. Upon the whole
he maintained peace with his neighbours, although both Germany and
England were torn with civil wars. He reluctantly consented to sanction the
conquest of Naples by his brother, Charles, duke of Anjou, and it is possible
that he yielded here in the belief that it was a step toward another crusade.

On the 24th of March 1267, Louis called to Paris such of his knights as
were not with Charles of Anjou in Naples. No one knew why he had called
them; but when the king in full assembly proclaimed his purpose of going
on a second crusade, few ventured to refuse the cross. Three years of
preparation followed; then on the 1st of July 1270 they sailed from Aigues
Mortes for Tunis, whither the expedition seems to have been directed by the
machinations of Charles of Anjou, who, it is claimed, persuaded his brother

that the key to Egypt and to Jerusalem was that part of Africa which was his
own most dangerous neighbour. After seventeen days’ voyage to Carthage,
one month of the summer’s heat and plague decimated the army, and when
Charles of Anjou arrived he found that Louis himself had died of the plague
on the 25th of August 1270.

Saint Louis stands in history as the ideal king of the middle ages. An
accomplished knight, physically strong in spite of his ascetic practices,
fearless in battle, heroic in adversity, of imperious temperament, unyielding
when sure of the justness of his cause, energetic and firm, he was indeed
“every inch a king.” Joinville says that he was taller by a head than any of
his knights. His devotions would have worn out a less robust saint. He
fasted much, loved sermons, regularly heard two masses a day and all the
offices, dressing at midnight for matins in his chapel, and surrounded even
when he travelled by priests on horseback chanting the hours. After his
return from the first crusade, he wore only grey woollens in winter, dark
silks in summer. He built hospitals, visited and tended the sick himself,
gave charity to over a hundred beggars daily. Yet he safeguarded the royal
dignity by bringing them in at the back door of the palace, and by a courtly
display greater than ever before in France. His naturally cold temperament
was somewhat relieved by a sense of humour, which however did not
prevent his making presents of haircloth shirts to his friends. He had no
favourite, nor prime minister. Louis was canonized in 1297.

As a statesman Louis IX. has left no distinct monument. The famous
“Établissements of St Louis” has been shown in our own day to have been
private compilation. It was a coutumier drawn up before 1273, including, as
well as some royal decrees, the civil and feudal law of Anjou, Maine and
the Orléanais. Recent researches have also denied Louis the credit of having
aided the communes. He exploited them to the full. His standpoint in this
respect was distinctly feudal. He treated his clergy as he did his barons,

enforcing the supremacy of royal justice, and strongly opposing the
exactions of the pope until the latter part of his reign, when he joined forces
with him to extort as much as possible from the clergy. At the end of the
reign most of the sees and monasteries of France were in debt to the
Lombard bankers. Finally, the reign of Saint Louis saw the introduction of
the pontifical inquisition into France.

There are numerous portraits of St Louis, but they are unauthentic
and contradictory. In 1903 M. Salomon Reinach claimed to have found
in the heads sculptured in the angles of the arches of the chapel at St
Germain portraits of St Louis, his brothers and sisters, and Queen
Marguerite, or Blanche, made between 1235 and 1240. This
conjectured portrait somewhat resembles the modern type, which is
based upon a statue of Charles V. once in the church of the Celestins in
Paris, and which Lenoir mistakenly identified as that of Louis IX. The
king had eleven children, six sons and five daughters, among them
being his successor, Philip III., and Robert, count of Clermont, the
ancestor of Henry IV.

The best contemporary accounts of Louis IX. are the famous
Memoirs of the Sire Jean de Joinville (q.v.), published by N. de Wailly
for the Soc. de l’Hist. de France, under the title Histoire de Saint Louis
(Paris, 1868), and again with translation (1874); English translation by
J. Hutton (1868). See also William of Nangis, Gesta Ludovici IX.,
edited by M. Bouquet in vol. xx. of the Recueil des historiens des
Gaules et de la France. Of modern works may be mentioned C. V.
Langlois in E. Lavisse’s Histoire de France, tome iii., with references
to literature; Frederick Perry, Saint Louis, the Most Christian King
(New York, 1901); E. J. Davis, The Invasion of Egypt by Louis IX. of
France (1898); H. A. Wallon, Saint Louis et son temps (1875); A.
Lecoy de la Marche, Saint Louis (Tours, 1891); and E. Berger, Saint

Louis et Innocent IV (Paris, 1893), and Histoire de Blanche de Castille
(1895). See also The Court of a Saint, by Winifred F. Knox (1909).
(J. T. S.*)

LOUIS X. (1289-1316), king of France and Navarre, called le Hutin
or “the Quarreller,” was the son of Philip IV. and of Jeanne of Navarre. He
was born at Paris on the 4th of October 1289, took the title king of Navarre
on the death of his mother, on the 2nd of April 1305, and succeeded Philip
IV. in France on the 29th of November 1314, being crowned at Reims in
August 1315. The origin of his surname is uncertain. Louis X. is a
somewhat indistinct figure among the kings of France, the preponderating
influence at court during his short reign being that of his uncle, Charles of
Valois. The reign began with reaction against the policy of Philip IV. Private
vengeance was wreaked on Enguerrand de Marigny, who was hanged,
Pierre de Latilli, bishop of Châlons and chancellor, and Raoul de Presle,
advocate of the parlement, who were imprisoned. The leagues of the lesser
country gentry, formed in 1314 before the accession of Louis, continued to
demand the ancient privileges of the nobility,—tourneys, private wars and
judgment of nobles not by king’s officers but by their peers—and to protest
against the direct call by the king of their vassals to the royal army. Louis
X. granted them charters in which he made apparent concessions, but used
evasive formulas which in reality ceded nothing. There was a charter to the
Normans, one to the Burgundians, one to the Languedocians (1315). Robert
de Béthune, count of Flanders, refused to do homage, and his French fiefs
were declared confiscate by a court of his peers. In August 1315 Louis X.

led an army toward Lille, but the flooded Lys barred his passage, the ground
was so soaked with rains that the army could not advance, and it was
thrown back, without a battle, on Tournai. Need of money inspired one
famous ordinance of this reign; in 1315 the serfs of the royal domains were
invited to buy their civil liberty,—an invitation which did not meet with
great enthusiasm, as the freedman was merely freed for further exploitation,
and Philip V. was obliged to renew it in 1318. Louis X. died suddenly on
the 5th of June 1316. His first wife was Margaret, daughter of Robert II.,
duke of Burgundy; she was accused of adultery and died a prisoner in the
château Gaillard. By her he had one daughter, Jeanne, wife of Philip, count
of Evreux and king of Navarre. By his second wife Clémence, daughter of
Charles Martel, titular king of Hungary, he left a posthumous son, King
John I.

See Ch. Dufayard, “La réaction feodale sous les fils de Philippe le
Bel,” in Revue historique (1894); Paul Lehugeur, Histoire de Philippe
le Long, roi de France (Paris, 1897); and Joseph Petit, Charles de
Valois (Paris, 1900).
(J. T. S.*)

LOUIS XI. (1423-1483), king of France, the son of Charles VII. and
his queen, Marie of Anjou, was born on the 3rd of July 1423, at Bourges,
where his father, then nicknamed the “King of Bourges,” had taken refuge
from the English. At the birth of Louis XI. part of France was in English
hands; when he was five years old, Joan of Arc appeared; he was just six

when his father was crowned at Reims. But his boyhood was spent apart
from these stirring events, in the castle of Loches, where his father visited
him rarely. John Gerson, the foremost theologian of France, wrote a manual
of instructions (still extant) for the first of his tutors, Jean Majoris, a canon
of Reims. His second tutor, Bernard of Armagnac, was noted for his piety
and humility. If, as has been claimed, Louis owed to them any of his
tendency to prefer the society of the poor, or rather of the bourgeois, to that
of the nobility, their example was his best lesson in the craft of kingship. In
June 1436, when scarcely thirteen, he was married to Margaret (c. 1425-
1445), daughter of James I. of Scotland, a princess of about his own age,
but sickly and romantic, and in every way his opposite. Three years after
this unhappy marriage Louis entered upon his stormy political career. Sent
by his father in 1439 to direct the defence of Languedoc against the
English, and to put down the brigandage in Poitou, he was induced by the
rebellious nobles to betray his trust and place himself at the head of the
Praguerie (q.v.). Charles VII. pardoned him this rebellion, due to his
ambition and the seductive proposal of the nobles to make him regent. The
following year he was fighting the English, and in 1443 aided his father to
suppress the revolt of the count of Armagnac. His first important command,
however, was in the next year, when he led an army of from 15,000 to
20,000 mercenaries and brigands,—the product of the Hundred Years’ War,
—against the Swiss of the canton of Basel. The heroism of some two
hundred Swiss, who for a while held thousands of the French army at bay,
made a great impression on the young prince. After an ineffective siege of
Basel, he made peace with the Swiss confederation, and led his robber
soldiers into Alsace to ravage the country of the Habsburgs, who refused
him the promised winter quarters. Meanwhile his father, making a parallel
campaign in Lorraine, had assembled his first brilliant court at Nancy, and
when Louis returned it was to find the king completely under the spell of
Agnes Sorel. He at first made overtures to members of her party, and upon

their rejection through fear of his ambition, his deadly hatred of her and of
them involved the king. The death in 1445 of his wife Margaret, who was a
great favourite of Charles VII., made the rupture complete. From that year
until the death of the king father and son were enemies. Louis began his
rebellious career by a futile attempt to seduce the cities of Agenais into
treason, and then he prepared a plot to seize the king and his minister Pierre
de Brézé. Antoine de Chabannes, who was to be the instrument of the plot,
revealed it to Charles, and Louis was mildly punished by being sent off to
Dauphiné (1447). He never saw his father again.

Louis set out to govern his principality as though it were an independent
state. He dismissed the governor; he determined advantageously to himself
the boundaries between his state and the territories of the duke of Savoy and
of the papacy; and he enforced his authority over perhaps the most unruly
nobility in western Europe, both lay and ecclesiastical. The right of private
warfare was abolished; the bishops were obliged to give up most of their
temporal jurisdiction, the scope of their courts was limited, and appeals to
Rome were curtailed. On the other hand, Louis granted privileges to the
towns and consistently used their alliance to overthrow the nobility. He
watched the roads, built new ones, opened markets, protected the only
bankers of the country, the Jews, and reorganized the administration so as to
draw the utmost revenue possible from the prosperity thus secured. His
ambition led him into foreign entanglements; he made a secret treaty with
the duke of Savoy which was to give him right of way to Genoa, and made
arrangements for a partition of the duchy of Milan. The alliance with Savoy
was sealed by the marriage of Louis with Charlotte, daughter of Duke
Lodovico, in 1452, in spite of the formal prohibition of Charles VII. The
king marched south, but withdrew again leaving his son unsubdued. Four
years later, as Charles came to the Bourbonnais, Louis, fearing for his life,
fled to Flanders to the court of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, leaving
Dauphiné to be definitely annexed to the crown of France. The policy of the

dauphin was reversed, his ten years’ work was undone. Meanwhile he was
installed in the castle of Genappe, in Brabant, where he remained until the
death of his father. For this he waited impatiently five years, keeping
himself posted by spies of every stage of the king’s last illness, and thus
laying himself open to the accusation, believed in by Charles himself, that
he had hastened the end by poison, a charge which modern historians deny.

On the 15th of August 1461, Louis was anointed at Reims, and Philip of
Burgundy, as doyen of the peers of France, placed the crown on his head.
For two months Philip acted as though the king were still his protégé. But in
the midst of the festivities with which he was entertaining Paris, the duke
found that Louis ventured to refuse his candidates for office, and on the
24th of September the new king left abruptly for Touraine. His first act was
to strike at the faithful ministers of Charles VII. Pierre de Brézé and
Antoine de Chabannes were captured and imprisoned, as well as men of
sterling worth like Étienne Chevalier. But the king’s shrewdness triumphed
before long over his vengeance, and the more serviceable of the officers of
Charles VII. were for the most part soon reinstated, Louis’ advisers were
mostly men of the middle class. He had a ready purse for men of talent,
drawing them from England, Scotland, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Such a
motley throng of competent men had never before been seen at the court of
France. Their origin, their previous crimes or virtues, their avarice or
brutality, were indifferent to him so long as they served him loyally. Torture
and imprisonment awaited them, whether of high or low degree, if he
fancied that they were betraying him. Among the most prominent of these
men in addition to Brézé, Chevalier and Chabannes, were Tristan Lermite,
Jean de Daillon, Olivier le Dain (the barber), and after 1472, Philippe de
Commines, drawn from the service of Charles the Bold of Burgundy, who
became his most intimate adviser and biographer. Surrounded by men like
these Louis fought the last great battle of French royalty with feudalism.

Louis XI. began his reign with the same high-handed treatment of the
nobles which had marked his rule in Dauphiné, going so far as to forbid
them to hunt without his permission. He forced the clergy to pay long-
neglected feudal dues, and intrigued against the great houses of Anjou and
Orleans in Italy. The malcontent nobles soon began to plan revolt.
Discharged officers of Charles VII. like Jean Dunois and John II. duke of
Bourbon, stirred up hostility to the new men of the king, and Francis II.
duke of Brittany was soon embroiled with Louis over an attempt to assert
royal control over that practically independent duchy. The dissatisfied
nobility found their greatest ally in Charles the Bold, afterwards duke of
Burgundy, and in 1465 formed a “league of public welfare” and declared
war on their king. The nominal head was the king’s brother Charles, duke of
Berry, then eighteen years old, a weak character, the tool of the rebels as he
was later the dupe of the king. Every great noble in France was in the
league, except Gaston de Foix—who kept the south of France for the king,
—and the counts of Vendôme and Eu. The whole country seemed on the
verge of anarchy. It was saved by the refusal of the lesser gentry to rise, and
by the alliance of the king with the citizen class, which was not led astray
by the pretences of regard for the public weal which cloaked the designs of
the leaguers. After a successful campaign in the Bourbonnais, Louis fought
an indecisive battle with the Burgundians who had marched on Paris at
Montlhéry, on the 16th of July 1465, and then stood a short siege in Paris.
On the 28th of September he made a truce with Charles the Bold, and in
October the treaties of Conflans and Saint Maur-les-Fossés, ended the war.
The king yielded at all points; gave up the “Somme towns” in Picardy, for
which he had paid 200,000 gold crowns, to Philip the Good, thus bringing
the Burgundians close to Paris and to Normandy. Charles, the king’s
brother, was given Normandy as an apanage, thus joining the territories of
the rebellious duke of Brittany with those of Charles the Bold. The public

weal was no longer talked about, while the kingdom was plundered both by
royal tax gatherers and by unsubdued feudal lords to pay the cost of the war.

After this failure Louis set to work to repair his mistakes. The duke of
Bourbon was won over by the gift of the government of the centre of
France, and Dunois and Chabannes by restoring them their estates. Two
months after he had granted Normandy to Charles, he took advantage of a
quarrel between the duke of Brittany and his brother to take it again,
sending the duke of Bourbon “to aid” Charles, while Dunois and Chabannes
prepared for the struggle with Burgundy. The death of Duke Philip, on the
15th of June 1467, gave Charles the Bold a free hand. He gained over
Edward IV. of England, whose sister Margaret he married; but while he was
celebrating the wedding Louis invaded Brittany and detached Duke Francis
from alliance with him. Normandy was completely reduced. The king had
won a great triumph. It was followed by his greatest mistake. Eager as he
always was to try diplomacy instead of war, Louis sent a gift of 60,000
golden crowns to Charles and secured a safe conduct from him for an
interview. The interview took place on the 9th of October 1468 at Péronne.
News came on the 11th that, instigated by the king of France, the people of
Liége had massacred their bishop and the ducal governor. The news was
false, but Charles, furious at such apparent duplicity, took Louis prisoner,
only releasing him, three days later, on the king signing a treaty which
granted Flanders freedom from interference from the parlement of Paris,
and agreeing to accompany Charles to the siege of his own ally, Liége.
Louis made light of the whole incident in his letters, but it marked the
greatest humiliation of his life, and he was only too glad to find a scapegoat
in Cardinal Jean Balue, who was accused of having plotted the treason of
Péronne. Balue thereupon joined Guillaume de Harancourt, bishop of
Verdun, in an intrigue to induce Charles of France to demand Champagne
and Brie in accordance with the king’s promise to Charles the Bold, instead
of distant Guienne where the king was determined to place him. The

discovery of this conspiracy placed these two high dignitaries in prison
(April 1469). Balue (q.v.) spent eleven years in prison quarters, comfortable
enough, in spite of the legend to the contrary, while Harancourt was shut up
in an iron cage until 1482. Then Louis, inducing his brother to accept
Guienne,—where, surrounded by faithful royal officers, he was harmless
for the time being,—undertook to play off the Lancastrians against Edward
IV. who, as the ally of Charles the Bold, was menacing the coast of
Normandy. Warwick, the king-maker, and Queen Margaret were aided in
the expedition which in 1470 again placed Henry VI. upon the English
throne. In the autumn Louis himself took the offensive, and royal troops
overran Picardy and the Maconnais to Burgundy itself. But the tide turned
against Louis in 1471. While Edward IV. won back England by the battles
of Barnet and Tewkesbury, Charles the Bold besieged Amiens, and Louis
was glad to make a truce, availing himself of the double dealing of the
constable, the count of Saint Pol, who, trying to win an independent
position for himself in Picardy, refused his aid to Charles unless he would
definitely join the French nobility in another rising against the king. This
rising was to be aided by the invasion of France by John II. of Aragon,
Yolande, duchess of Savoy, and Edward IV. of England, who was to be
given the old Plantagenet inheritance. The country was saved a desperate
civil war by the death of the king’s brother, Charles, the nominal head of the
coalition, on the 24th of May 1472. Louis’ joy on receiving news of this
death knew no bounds. Charles the Bold, who had again invaded France,
failed to take Beauvais, and was obliged to make a lasting truce. His
projects were henceforth to be directed towards Germany. Louis then forced
the duke of Brittany to make peace, and turned against John V. count of
Armagnac, whose death at the opening of March 1473 ended the power of
one of the most dangerous houses of the south. The first period of Louis’
reign was closed, and with it closed for ever the danger of dismemberment
of France. John of Aragon continued the war in Roussillon and Cerdagne,

which Louis had seized ten years before, and a most desperate rising of the
inhabitants protracted the struggle for two years. After the capture of
Perpignan on the 10th of March 1475, the wise and temperate government
of Imbert de Batarnay and Boffile de Juge slowly pacified the new
provinces. The death of Gaston IV. count of Foix in 1472 opened up the
long diplomatic struggle for Navarre, which was destined to pass to the
loyal family of Albret shortly after the death of Louis. His policy had won
the line of the Pyrenees for France.

The overthrow of Charles the Bold was the second great task of Louis
XI. This he accomplished by a policy much like that of Pitt against
Napoleon. Louis was the soul of all hostile coalitions, especially urging on
the Swiss and Sigismund of Austria, who ruled Tirol and Alsace. Charles’s
ally, Edward IV., invaded France in June 1475, but Louis bought him off on
the 29th of August at Picquigny—where the two sovereigns met on a bridge
over the Somme, with a strong grille between them, Edward receiving
75,000 crowns, and a promise of a pension of 50,000 crowns annually. The
dauphin Charles was to marry Edward’s daughter. Bribery of the English
ministers was not spared, and in September the invaders recrossed to
England. The count of Saint Pol, who had continued to play his double part,
was surrendered by Charles to Louis, and executed, as was also Jacques
d’Armagnac, duke of Nemours. With his vassals terrorized and subdued,
Louis continued to subsidize the Swiss and René II. of Lorraine in their war
upon Charles. The defeat and death of the duke of Burgundy at Nancy on
the 5th of January 1477 was the crowning triumph of Louis’ diplomacy. But
in his eagerness to seize the whole inheritance of his rival, Louis drove his
daughter and heiress, Mary of Burgundy, into marriage with Maximilian of
Austria (afterwards the emperor Maximilian I.), who successfully defended
Flanders after a savage raid by Antoine de Chabannes. The battle of
Guinegate on the 7th of August 1479 was indecisive, and definite peace was
not established until after the death of Mary, when by the treaty of Arras

(1482) Louis received Picardy, Artois and the Boulonnais, as well as the
duchy of Burgundy and Franche Comté. The Austrians were left in
Flanders, a menace and a danger. Louis failed here and in Spain; this failure
being an indirect cause of that vast family compact which surrounded
France later with the empire of Charles V. His interference in Spain had
made both John II. of Aragon and Henry IV. of Castile his enemies, and so
he was unable to prevent the marriage of their heirs, Ferdinand and Isabella.
But the results of these marriages could not be foreseen, and the unification
of France proved of more value than the possession of so widespread an
empire. This unification was completed (except for Brittany) and the
frontiers enlarged by the acquisition, upon the death of René of Anjou in
1480, of the duchies of Anjou and Bar, and in 1481 of Maine and Provence
upon the death of Charles II., count of Maine. Of the inheritance of the
house of Anjou only Lorraine escaped the king.

Failure in Spain was compensated for in Italy. Without waging war Louis
made himself virtual arbiter of the fate of the principalities in the north, and
his court was always besieged by ambassadors from them. After the death
of Charles the Bold, Yolande, duchess of Savoy, was obliged to accept the
control of Louis, who was her brother. In Milan he helped to place
Lodovico il Moro in power in 1479, but he reaped less from this supple
tyrant than he had expected. Pope Sixtus IV. the enemy of the Medici, was
also the enemy of the king of France. Louis, who at the opening of his reign
had denounced the Pragmatic Sanction of 1438, had played fast and loose
with the papacy. When Sixtus threatened Florence after the Pazzi
conspiracy, 1478, Louis aided Lorenzo dei Medici to form an alliance with
Naples, which forced the papacy to come to terms.

More than any other king of France, Louis XI. was a “bourgeois king.”
The upper bourgeois, the aristocracy of his “good cities,” were his allies
both against the nobles and against the artisan class, whenever they

revolted, driven to desperation by the oppressive royal taxes which
furnished the money for his wars or diplomacy. He ruled like a modern
capitalist; placed his bribes like investments in the courts of his enemies;
and, while draining the land of enormous sums, was pitiless toward the two
productive portions of his realm, the country population and the artisans.
His heartlessness toward the former provoked even an accomplice like
Commines to protest. The latter were kept down by numerous edicts,
tending to restrict to certain privileged families the rank of master workman
in the gilds. There was the paternalism of a Frederick the Great in his
encouragement of the silk industry,—“which all idle people ought to be
made to work at,”—in his encouragement of commerce through the newly
acquired port of Marseilles and the opening up of market placed. He even
dreamed of a great trading company “of two hundred thousand livres or
more,” to monopolize the trade of the Mediterranean, and planned to unify
the various systems of weights and measures. In 1479 he called a meeting
of two burgesses from each “good city” of his realm to consider means for
preventing the influx of foreign coin. Impatient of all restraint upon his
personal rule, he was continually in violent dispute with the parlement of
Paris, and made “justice” another name for arbitrary government; yet he
dreamed of a unification of the local customary laws (coûtumes) of France.
He was the perfect model of a tyrant. The states-general met but once in his
reign, in 1468, and then no talk of grievances was allowed; his object was
only to get them to declare Normandy inalienable from the crown. They
were informed that the king could raise his revenue without consulting
them. Yet his budgets were enormously greater than ever before. In 1481
the taille alone brought in 4,600,000 livres, and even at the peaceful close
of his reign his whole budget was 4,655,000 livres—as against 1,800,000
livres at the close of his father’s reign.

The king who did most for French royalty would have made a sorry
figure at the court of a Louis XIV. He was ungainly, with rickety legs. His

eyes were keen and piercing, but a long hooked nose lent grotesqueness to a
face marked with cunning rather than with dignity. Its ugliness was
emphasized by the old felt hat which he wore,—its sole ornament the
leaden figure of a saint. Until the close of his life, when he tried to mislead
ambassadors as to the state of his health by gorgeous robes, he wore the
meanest clothes. Dressed in grey like a pilgrim, and accompanied by five or
six trustworthy servants, he would set out on his interminable travels,
“ambling along on a good mule.” Thus he traversed France, avoiding all
ceremony, entering towns by back streets, receiving ambassadors in
wayside huts, dining in public houses, enjoying the loose manners and
language of his associates, and incidentally learning at first hand the
condition of his people and the possibilities of using or taxing them—his
needs of them rather than theirs of him. He loved to win men, especially
those of the middle class, by affability and familiarity, employing all his arts
to cajole and seduce those whom he needed. Yet his honied words easily
turned to gall. He talked rapidly and much, sometimes for hours at a time,
and most indiscreetly. He was not an agreeable companion, violent in his
passions, nervous, restless, and in old age extremely irascible. Utterly
unscrupulous, and without a trace of pity, he treated men like pawns, and
was content only with absolute obedience.

But this Machiavellian prince was the genuine son of St Louis. His
religiosity was genuine if degenerate. He lavished presents on influential
saints, built shrines, sent gifts to churches, went on frequent pilgrimages
and spent much time in prayer—employing his consummate diplomacy to
win celestial allies, and rewarding them richly when their aid secured him
any advantage. St Martin of Tours received 1200 crowns after the capture of
Perpignan. He tried to bribe the saints of his enemies, as he did their
ministers. An unfaltering faith taught him the value of religion—as a branch
of politics. Finally, more in the spirit of orthodoxy, he used the same arts to
make sure of heaven. When the ring of St Zanobius and the blood of Cape

Verde turtles gave him no relief from his last illness, he showered gifts upon
his patron saints, secured for his own benefit the masses of his clergy, and
the most potent prayers in Christendom, those of the two most effective
saints of his day, Bernardin of Doulins and Francis of Paolo.

During the last two or three years of his life Louis lived in great isolation,
“seeing no one, speaking with no one, except such as he commanded,” in
the château of Plessis-les-Tours, that “spider’s nest” bristling with watch
towers, and guarded only by the most trusty servitors. A swarm of
astrologers and physicians preyed upon his fears—and his purse. But,
however foolish in his credulity, he still made his strong hand felt both in
France and in Italy, remaining to the last “the terrible king.” His fervent
prayers were interrupted by instructions for the regency which was to
follow. He died on the 30th of August 1483, and was buried, according to
his own wish, without royal state, in the church at Cléry, instead of at St
Denis. He left a son, his successor, Charles VIII., and two daughters.

See the admirable résumé by Charles Petit-Dutaillis in Lavisse’s
Histoire de France, tome iv. pt. ii. (1902), and bibliographical
indications given there. Michelet’s wonderful depiction in his Histoire
de France (livres 13 to 17) has never been surpassed for graphic word-
painting, but it is inaccurate in details, and superseded in scholarship.
Of the original sources for the reign the Lettres de Louis XI. (edited by
Charavay and Vaesen, 8 vols., 1883-1902), the celebrated Mémoires of
Philippe de Commines and the Journal of Jean de Royl naturally come
first. The great mass of literature on the period is analysed in masterly
fashion by A. Molinier, Sources de l’histoire de France (tome v. pp. 1-
146), and to this exhaustive bibliography the reader is referred for
further research. See also C. Hare, The Life of Louis XI. (London,
1907).
(J. T. S.*)

LOUIS XII. (1462-1515), king of France, was grandson of Louis of
Orleans, the brother of Charles VI., and son of the poet prince, Charles of
Orleans, who, after the battle of Agincourt, spent twenty-five years of
captivity in England. Louis was duke of Orleans until his accession to the
throne, and he was fourteen years old when Louis XI. gave him the hand of
his second daughter, Joan the Lame. In the first years of the reign of Charles
VIII., Louis made a determined stand against the government of the
Beaujeus, stirred up coalitions of the feudal nobles against them, and was
finally defeated and taken prisoner at St Aubin du Cormier in 1488. Charles
VIII. set him at liberty in 1491. These successive checks tamed him a little.
In the Italian expedition of 1494 he commanded the vanguard of the royal
army, occupied Genoa, and remained in the north of Italy, menacing Milan,
on which he was already dreaming of asserting his rights. The children of
Charles VIII. having died in infancy, he became heir-presumptive to the
throne, and succeeded Charles in 1499. Louis was then thirty-six years old,
but he seems to have grown old prematurely. He was fragile, narrow-
shouldered and of a sickly constitution. His intelligence was mediocre, his
character weak, and he allowed himself to be dominated by his wife, Anne
of Brittany, and his favourite the Cardinal d’Amboise. He was a good king,
full of moderation and humanity, and bent upon maintaining order and
improving the administration of justice. He enjoyed a genuine popularity,
and in 1506 the estates of Tours conferred on him the surname of Père du
Peuple. His foreign policy, which was directed wholly towards Italy, was

for the most part unskilful; to his claims on Naples he added those on
Milan, which he based on the marriage of his grandfather, Louis of Orleans,
with Valentina Visconti. He led in person several armies into Italy, and
proved as severe and pitiless towards his enemies as he was gentle and
clement towards his subjects. Louis had two daughters. After his accession
he had divorced his virtuous and ill-favoured queen, Joan, and had married,
in 1499, Anne of Brittany, the widow of Charles VIII. On her death in
January 1514, in order to detach England from the alliance against him, he
married on the 9th of October 1514, Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII. of
England (see Mary, queen of France). He died on the 1st of January 1515.

For a bibliography of the printed sources see Henri Hauser, Les
Sources de l’histoire de France, XVIe siècle, vol. 1. (Paris, 1906). The
principal secondary authorities are De Maulde, Histoire de Louis XII.
(Paris, 1889-1893); Le Roux de Lincy, Vie de la reine Anne de
Bretagne (Paris, 1860); H. Lemonnier, Les Guerres d’Italie (Paris,
1903) in the Histoire de France by E. Lavisse.
(J. I.)

LOUIS XIII. (1601-1643), king of France, was the son of Henry IV.
and of Marie de’ Medici. He became king on his father’s assassination in
1610; but his mother at once seized the full powers of regent. She
determined to reverse the policy of her husband and to bring France into
alliance with Spain and the Austrian house, upon which power Henry had
been meditating an attack at the time of his death. Two marriages were

designed to cement this alliance. Louis was to marry Anne of Austria,
daughter of the Spanish king, Philip III., and the Spanish prince, afterwards
Philip IV., himself was to marry the Princess Elizabeth, the king’s sister.
Notwithstanding the opposition of the Protestants and nobles of France, the
queen carried through her purpose and the marriages were concluded in
1615. The next years were full of civil war and political intrigue, during
which the queen relied upon the Marshal d’Ancre. Louis XIII. was a
backward boy, and his education had been much neglected. We have the
fullest details of his private life, and yet his character remains something of
a mystery. He was fond of field sports and seemed to acquiesce in his
mother’s occupation of power and in the rule of her favourites. But
throughout his life he concealed his purposes even from his closest friends;
sometimes it seems as if he were hardly conscious of them himself. In 1617
he was much attached to Charles d’Albert, sieur de Luynes; and with his
help he arrested Marshal d’Ancre, and on his resistance had him
assassinated. From this time to her death the relation between the king and
his mother was one of concealed or open hostility. The article on France
must be consulted for the intricate events of the following years.

The decisive incident for his private life as well as for his reign was the
entrance of Cardinal Richelieu, hitherto the queen’s chief adviser, into the
king’s council in 1624. Henceforth the policy of France was directed by
Richelieu, who took up in its main features the system of Protestant
alliances and opposition to the power of Austria and Spain, which had been
begun by Henry IV. and had been interrupted by the queen-mother during
the regency; while he asserted the power of the crown against all rivals at
home. This policy had remarkable results for the king’s private life. It not
only brought him into unremitting conflict with the Protestants and the
nobles of France, but also made him the enemy of his mother, of his brother
Gaston of Orleans, who made himself the champion of the cause of the
nobles, and sometimes even of his wife. It is not easy to define his relations

to Richelieu. He was convinced of his loyalty and of his genius, and in the
end always supported his policy. But he disliked the friction with his family
circle which this policy produced. In the difficulty with which he expressed
himself and in a certain indecision of character the king was curiously
unlike his father, the frank and impetuous Henry of Navarre, and his
absolute son Louis XIV. He took a great interest in all the externals of war.
He was present, and is said to have played an important part at the passage
of Susa in 1629, and also eagerly participated in the siege of Rochelle,
which surrendered in the same year. But for the most part his share in the
great events of the reign was a passive one. The one all-important fact was
that he supported his great minister. There were certain occasions when it
seemed as if that support would be denied. The chief of these was what is
known as the “Day of Dupes” (1630). Then the queen-mother and the
king’s brother passionately attacked the minister, and for a moment it was
believed that Richelieu was dismissed and that the queen-mother and a
Spanish policy had triumphed. But the sequel only strengthened the power
of the minister. He regained his ascendancy over the king, punished his
enemies and forced Marie de’ Medici and Gaston of Orleans to sue for
pardon. In 1631 Gaston fled to Lorraine and the queen-mother to Brussels.
Gaston soon returned, to plot, to fail and to sue for pardon again and again;
but Marie de’Medici ended her life in exile.

Richelieu’s position was much strengthened by these incidents, but to the
end of life he had to struggle against conspiracies which were designed to
deprive him of the king’s support, and usually Gaston of Orleans had some
share in these movements. In 1632 the duke of Montmorency’s conspiracy
brought its leader to the scaffold. But the last great effort to overthrow
Richelieu was closely connected with the king. Louis XIII. had from the
beginning of his reign had favourites—young men for the most part with
whom he lived freely and intimately and spoke of public affairs lightly and
unreservedly; and who in consequence often exaggerated their influence

over him. Henri d’Effiat, marquis de Cinq-Mars, was the last of these
favourites. The king is said to have allowed him to speak hostilely of
Richelieu and even to recall the assassination of Marshal d’Ancre. Cinq-
Mars believed himself secure of the king’s favour. He entered into
negotiations with Spain and was secretly supported by Gaston of Orleans.
But Richelieu discovered his treasonous relations with Spain and by this
means defeated his plot. Louis was reconciled to his minister. “We have
lived too long together to be separated” he is reported to have said
(September 1642). Yet when Richelieu died in December of the same year
he allowed himself to speak of him in a jealous and satirical tone. He died
himself a few months later (May 1643).

His nature was timid, lethargic and melancholy, and his court was not
marked by the scandals which had been seen under Henry IV. Yet
Mademoiselle de la Fayette and Madame d’Hautefort and others are said to
have been his mistresses. His brother Gaston survived him, but gave
unexpectedly little trouble during the wars of the Fronde which ensued on
the death of Louis XIII.

The chief source of information on Louis XIII.’s life is to be found
in the contemporary memoirs, of which the chief are: Bassompierre,
Fontenay-Mareuil, Gaston d’Orléans, Montrésor, Omer Talon.
Richelieu’s own Memoirs are chiefly concerned with politics and
diplomacy. Of modern works those most directly bearing on the king’s
personal life are R. de Beauchamp, Louis XIII. d’après sa
correspondance avec le cardinal de Richelieu; G. Hanotaux, Histoire
du cardinal de Richelieu (1893-1896); Rossignol, Louis XIII. avant
Richelieu; M. Topin, Louis XIII. et Richelieu (1876). See too Professor
R. Lodge, Richelieu; J. B. H. R. Capefigue, Richelieu, Mazarin et la
Fronde (1835-1836); and Dr J. H. Bridges, Richelieu, Mazarin and
Colbert (1866).

For full bibliography see G. Monod, Bibliographie de l’histoire de
France; Cambridge Modern History, vol. iv. (“The Thirty Years’
War”); Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire générale, vol. v. (“Guerres de
religion”). (A. J. G.*)

LOUIS XIV. (1638-1715), king of France, was born at Saint-
Germain-en-Laye on the 5th of September 1638. His father, Louis XIII.,
had married Anne of Austria, daughter of Philip III., king of Spain, in 1615,
but for twenty years the marriage had remained without issue. The
childlessness of the king was a constant threat to the policy of his great
minister Richelieu; for the king’s brother and heir, Gaston of Orleans, was a
determined opponent of that policy. The birth of the prince who was
destined to reign as Louis XIV. was therefore hailed as a triumph, not less
important than any of those won by diplomacy or arms. The death of his
father made Louis XIV. king on the 14th of May 1643, but he had to wait
sixteen years before he began to rule. Power lay for some time in the hands
of the queen-mother and in those of her minister, Cardinal Mazarin, who
found it difficult to maintain the power of the throne and the integrity of
French territory during the domestic troubles of the Fronde and the last
stages of the Thirty Year’s War. The minister was hated as a foreigner, and
the childhood of the king weakened the royal authority. Twice the court had
to flee from Paris; once when there was a rumour of intended flight the
populace was admitted to see the king in his bed. The memory of these
humiliations played their part in developing later the autocratic ideas of

Louis. Mazarin, in spite of all disadvantages, triumphed alike over his
domestic and his foreign opponents. The Fronde was at an end by 1653; the
peace of Westphalia (1648) and the peace of the Pyrenees (1659) marked
the success of the arms and of the diplomacy of France. Louis XIV. was
now twenty-one years of age and was anxious to rule as well as to reign.
The peace of the Pyrenees was a decisive event in his personal history as
well as in that of France, for one of its most important stipulations referred
to his marriage. He had already been strongly attracted to one of the nieces
of Mazarin, but reasons of state triumphed over personal impulse; and it
was agreed that the new friendship with Spain should be cemented by the
marriage of Louis to his cousin, the Infanta Maria Theresa. A large dowry
was stipulated for; and in consideration of this the king promised to forgo
all claims that his wife might otherwise possess to the Spanish crown or any
part of its territories. The dowry was never paid, and the king held himself
free of his promise.

The marriage took place at once, and the king entered Paris in triumph in
1660. Mazarin died in the next year; but so strong was the feeling that the
kings of France could only rule through a first minister that it was generally
expected that Mazarin would soon have a successor. The king, however, at
once announced his intention of being his own first minister; and from this
resolution he never swerved. Whatever great qualities he may have lacked
he certainly possessed industry and patience in the highest degree. He built
up a thoroughly personal system of government, and presided constantly
over the council and many of its committees. He was fond of gaiety and of
sport; but neither ever turned him away from the punctual and laborious
discharge of his royal duties. Even the greatest of his ministers found
themselves controlled by the king. Fouquet, the finance minister, had
accumulated enormous wealth during the late disturbances, and seemed to
possess power and ambition too great for a subject. Louis XIV. found it
necessary almost to conspire against him; he was overthrown and

condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Those who had most of the king’s
confidence afterwards were Colbert for home affairs; Lionne for diplomacy;
Louvois for war; but as his reign proceeded he became more self-confident
and more intolerant of independence of judgment in his ministers.

His court was from the first one of great brilliance. In art and in
literature, the great period, which is usually called by the king’s name, had
in some respects passed its zenith when he began to reign. But France was
unquestionably the first state in Europe both in arms and arts, and within
France the authority of the king was practically undisputed. The nation,
proud of its pre-eminence and weary of civil war, saw in the king its true
representative and the guarantee of its unity and success. Louis was
singularly well fitted by his physical and intellectual gifts for the rôle of
Grand Monarque and he played it to perfection. His wife Maria Theresa
bore him children but there was no community of tastes between them, and
the chief influence at court is to be found not in the queen but in the
succession of avowed mistresses. Mademoiselle de la Vallière held the
position from 1662 to 1670; she was then ousted by Madame de
Montespan, who had fiercely intrigued for it, and whose proud and
ambitious temper offered a great contrast to her rival. She held her position
from 1670 to 1679 and then gave place to the still more famous Madame de
Maintenon, who ruled, however, not as mistress but as wife. The events that
brought about this incident form the strangest episode in the king’s private
life. Madame de Maintenon was the widow of the dramatist Scarron, and
first came into relationship with the king as governess to his illegitimate
children. She was a woman of unstained life and strongly religious
temperament; and it was by this that she gained so great an influence over
the king. Through her influence the king was reconciled to his wife, and,
when Maria Theresa died in 1683, Madame de Maintenon shortly
afterwards (in 1684) became the king’s wife, though this was never
officially declared. Under her influence the court lost most of its gaiety, and

religion came to exercise much control over the life and the policy of the
king.

The first years of the king’s rule were marked by the great schemes of
Colbert for the financial, commercial, industrial and naval reorganization of
France, and in these schemes Louis took a deep interest. But in 1667 began
the long series of wars, which lasted with little real intermission to the end
of the reign (see France). In the steps that led to these wars and in their
conduct the egotistic ambition and the vanity of the king played an
important part; though he never showed real military skill and took no share
in any military operations except in certain sieges. The War of Devolution
(or the Queen’s War) in 1667-68 to enforce the queen’s claim to certain
districts in the Spanish Netherlands, led to the Dutch War (1672-78), and in
both these wars the supremacy of the French armies was clearly apparent.
The next decade (1678-1688) was the real turning-point in the history of the
reign, and the strength of France was seriously diminished. The chief cause
of this is to be found in the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The church
had always opposed this settlement and had succeeded in altering it in many
points. Now the new religious zeal and the autocratic temper of Louis XIV.
came to the support of the church. The French Huguenots found their
privileges decreased, and then, in 1685, the edict was altogether withdrawn.
The results were ruinous to France. It was not only that she lost many
thousands of her best citizens, but this blow against Protestantism deprived
her of those Protestant alliances in Europe which had been in the past her
great diplomatic support. Then the English Revolution came in 1688 and
changed England from a wavering ally into the most determined of the
enemies of France.

The war with the Grand Alliance, of which King William III. was the
heart and soul, lasted from 1688 to 1697; and the treaty of Ryswick, which
brought it to an end, deprived France of certain territories on her frontier.

But Louis saw in the Spanish question a chance of more than making up for
this loss. The Spanish king Charles II. was dying, and the future of the
possessions of Spain was doubtful. The astute diplomacy of Louis
succeeded in winning the inheritance for his grandson Philip. But this
involved France and Europe in an immense war (1700) and by the peace of
Utrecht (1713), though the French prince retained the Spanish crown,
France had again to make concessions of territory.

Louis XIV. had shown wonderful tenacity of purpose during this
disastrous war, and sometimes a nobler and more national spirit than during
the years of his triumphs. But the condition of France was terrible. She was
burdened with debt; the reforms of Colbert were ruined; and opposition to
the king’s régime began to make itself felt. Peace brought some relief to
France, but the last years of the king’s life were gloomy in the extreme. His
numerous descendants seemed at one time to place the succession beyond
all difficulty. But his eldest son, the dauphin, died in April 1711; his eldest
grandson the duke of Burgundy in February 1712; and his great-grandson
the duke of Brittany in March 1712. The heir to the throne was now the
duke of Burgundy’s son, the duke of Anjou, afterwards Louis XV. The king
died on the 1st of September 1715, after the longest recorded reign in
European history. The judgment of posterity has not repeated the flattering
verdict of his contemporaries; but he remains the model of a great king in
all that concerns the externals of kingship.

The reign of Louis XIV. is particularly rich in memoirs describing
the life of the court. The chief are Madame de Motteville’s memoirs for
the period of the Fronde, and the letters cf Madame de Sévigné and the
memoirs of Saint-Simon for the later period. The king’s ideas are best
seen in the Mémoires de Louis XIV. pour l’instruction du dauphin
(edited by Dreyss, 2 vols.). His private life is revealed in the letters of
Madame de Maintenon and in those of Madame, Duchesse d’Orléans.

Of the ordinary historians of France Michelet is fullest on the private
life of the king. Mention may also be made of Voltaire, Siècle de Louis
XIV.; P. Clément, Histoire de la vie et de l’administration de Colbert;
Sainte-Beuve, Causeries de lundi. Full bibliographies of the reign will
be found in G. Monod’s Bibliographie de l’histoire de France; vol. v.
(“The Age of Louis XIV.”) of the Cambridge Modern History; and vol.
vi. (“Louis XIV.”) of the Histoire générale of Lavisse and Rambaud.
(A. J. G.*)

LOUIS XV. (1710-1774), king of France, was the great-grandson of
Louis XIV. and the third son of Louis, duke of Burgundy, and Marie
Adelaide, princess of Savoy. The first son had died in 1705, and in 1712 the
second son, the duke of Brittany, as well as his father and mother, was
carried off by a mysterious disease. Louis was thus unexpectedly brought
into the line of the succession, and was only five years old when Louis XIV.
died. The dead king had endeavoured by his will to control the
administration even after his death by a carefully selected council of
regency, in which the duke of Orleans should have only the nominal
presidency; but with the help of the parlement of Paris the arrangement was
at once set aside, and the duke was declared regent with full traditional
powers. The duke had capacity, but his life was so licentious that what
influence he had upon the king was for evil. Fleury, bishop of Fréjus, was
appointed his tutor, and the little king was sincerely attached to him. The
king attained his legal majority at the age of thirteen, shortly before the
death of the duke of Orleans. His first minister was the incapable duke of

Bourbon, who in 1725 procured the repudiation of the Spanish princess, to
whom the king had been betrothed, and his marriage to Maria Leszczynska,
daughter of the exiled king of Poland, then resident in Alsace. In 1726 the
duke of Bourbon was displaced by the king’s tutor, Bishop (afterwards
Cardinal) Fleury, who exercised almost absolute power, for the king took
little interest in affairs of state. His administration was successful and
peaceful until the year 1734, when a disputed succession in Poland brought
about the interference of France on behalf of the queen’s father. France was
unsuccessful in her immediate object, but at the peace of Vienna (1735)
secured the possession of Lorraine. Up to this point the reign had been
prosperous; but from this time on it is a record of declining national
strength, which was not compensated by some days of military glory.
Fleury’s great age (he died still in office at the age of ninety) prevented him
from really controlling the policy of France and of Europe. In 1740 the war
of the Austrian Succession broke out and France drifted into it as an ally of
Frederick of Prussia and the enemy of England, and of Maria Theresa of
Austria.

On Fleury’s death in 1743 no one took his place, and the king professed
to adopt the example of Louis XIV. and to establish a personal autocracy.
But he was not strong enough in will or intellect to give unity to the
administration. The marquis d’Argenson writes that at the council table
Louis “opened his mouth, said little and thought not at all,” and again that
“under the appearance of personal monarchy it was really anarchy that
reigned.” He had followed too in his domestic life the example of his
predecessors. The queen for some time seems to have secured his
affections, and she bore him seven children. But soon we hear of the royal
mistresses. The first to acquire notoriety was the duchess of Châteauroux,
the third sister of one family who held this position. She was at least in part
the cause of the only moment of popularity which the king enjoyed. She
urged him to take part personally in the war. France had just received a

humiliating check at Dettingen, and the invasion of the north-eastern
frontier was feared. The king went to Metz in 1744, and his presence there
did something to ward off the danger. While the nation felt genuine
gratitude for his energy and its success, he was reported to have fallen
dangerously ill. The king, of whom it was said that the fear of hell was the
only part of religion which had any reality for him, now dismissed the
duchess of Châteauroux and promised amendment. Prayers were offered
everywhere for his recovery, and the country was swept by a delirium of
loyal enthusiasm, which conferred on him the title of Louis le bien aimé.
But his future life disappointed all these hopes. The duchess of Châteauroux
died in the same year, but her place was taken in 1745 by Madame de
Pompadour. This woman had philanthropic impulses and some real interest
in art and letters; but her influence on public affairs was a fatal one. She had
many rivals during her lifetime and on her death in 1764 she was succeeded
by Madame du Barry (q.v.). But the mention of these three women gives no
idea of the degradation of the king’s life. There has doubtless been
exaggeration as to certain details, and the story of his seraglio at the Parc
aux cerfs is largely apocryphal. But it would be difficult to mention the
name of any European king whose private life shows such a record of
vulgar vice unredeemed by higher aims of any kind. He was not without
ambition, but without sufficient tenacity of purpose to come near to
realizing it. To the last he maintained the pretence of personal rule, but the
machinery of government fell out of gear, and the disorder of the finances
was never remedied before the revolution of 1789.

The peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), which ended the war of the
Austrian Succession, brought no gains to France in spite of her victories at
Fontenoy and Raucoux; and the king was blamed for the diplomatic failure.
The interval between this war and the Seven Years’ War (1756) saw that
great reversal of alliances which is sometimes called the “Diplomatic
Revolution”; whereby France repudiated the alliance of Frederick the Great

and joined hands with her old enemy Austria. The intrigues of Madame de
Pompadour played in this change an important though not a decisive part. It
was the cause of immense disasters to France; for after a promising
beginning, both by land and sea, France suffered reverses which lost her
both India and Canada and deprived her of the leading position which she
had so long held in Europe. Her humiliation was declared by the peace of
Paris (1763).

The article on the history of France (q.v.) shows how there arose during
the last years of Louis XV.’s reign a strong reaction against the monarchy
and its methods. Military success had given it its strength; and its prestige
was ruined by military failure. In the parlements, provincial and Parisian; in
religion and in literature, a note of opposition is struck which was never to
die until the monarchy was overthrown. France annexed Corsica in 1768,
but this was felt to be the work of the minister Chauvelin, and reflected no
credit on the king. He died in 1774 of smallpox. If the reign of his
predecessor shows us almost the ideal of personal monarchy we may see in
that of Louis XV. all the vices and errors exemplified which lie in wait for
absolute hereditary rule which has survived the period of its usefulness.

For the king’s life generally see the memoirs of Saint-Simon,
d’Argenson, Villars and Barbier, and for the details of his private life E.
Boutaric, Correspondance secrète de Louis XV.; Madame de
Pompadour’s Correspondance published by P. Malassi; Dietric, Les
Maîtresses de Louis XV.; and Fleury, Louis XV. intimes et les petites
maîtresses (1909).

For the system of secret diplomacy and organized espionage, known
as the Secret du roi, carried on under the auspices of Louis XV., see
Albert duc de Broglie, Le Secret du roi. Correspondance secrète de
Louis XV. avec ses agents diplomatiques 1752-1774 (Paris, 1878); and
for a general account of the reign, H. Carré, La France sous Louis XV.