VOLUME XVI SLICE I L to Lamellibranchia (continued 11)

The Sales of Lives is an auction held by Zeus to see what price the lives of philosophers of the rival sects will bring. A Pythagorean, who speaks in the Ionic dialect, first undergoes an examination as to what he can teach, and this contains an enumeration of the doctrines usually ascribed to that sect, including metempsychosis. He is valued at 7s. 6d., and is succeeded by Diogenes, who avows himself the champion of truth, a cosmopolitan (8), and the enemy of pleasure. Socrates brings two talents, and is purchased by Dion, tyrant of Syracuse (19). Chrysippus, who gives some specimens of his clever quibbles,7 is bought for fifty pounds, Aristotle for nearly a hundred, while Pyrrho the sceptic (or one of his school), who professes to “know nothing,” brings four pounds, “because he is dull and stupid and has no more sense than a grub” (27). But the man raises a doubt, “whether or not he has really been bought,” and refuses to go with the purchaser till he has fully considered the matter.

Timon is a very amusing and witty dialogue. The misanthrope, once wealthy, has become a poor farm-labourer, and reproaches Zeus for his indifference to the injustice of man. Zeus declares that the noisy disputes in Attica have so disgusted him that he has not been there for a long time (9). He tells Hermes to conduct Plutus to visit Timon, and see what can be done to help him. Plutus, who at first refuses to go, is persuaded after a long conversation with Hermes, and Timon is found by them digging in his field (31). Poverty is unwilling to resign her votary to wealth; and Timon himself is with difficulty persuaded to turn up with his mattock a crock of gold coins. Now that he has once more become rich, his former flatterers come cringing with their congratulations and respects, but they are all driven off with broken heads or pelted with stones. Between this dialogue and the Plutus of Aristophanes there are many close resemblances.

Hermotimus (pp. 739-831) is one of the longer dialogues, Hermotimus, a student of the Stoic philosophy for twenty years (2), and Lucian (Lycinus) being the interlocutors. The long time—forty years at the least—required for climbing up to the temple of virtue and happiness, and the short span of life, if any, left for the enjoyment of it, are discussed. That the greatest philosophers do not always attain perfect indifference, the Stoic ultimatum, is shown by the anecdote of one who dragged his pupil into court to make him pay his fee (9), and again by a violent quarrel with another at a banquet (11). Virtue is compared to a city with just and good and contented inhabitants; but so many offer themselves as guides to the right road to virtue that the inquirer is bewildered (26). What is truth, and who are the right teachers of it? The question is argued at length, and illustrated by a peculiar custom of watching the pairs of athletes and setting aside the reserved combatant (πάρεδρος) at the Olympian games by the marks on the ballots (40-43). This, it is argued, cannot be done till all the ballots have been examined; so a man cannot select the right way till he has tried all the ways to virtue. But to know the doctrines of all the sects is impossible in the term of a life (49). To take a taste of each, like trying a sample of wine, will not do, because the doctrines taught are not, like the crock of wine, the same throughout, but vary or advance day by day (59). A suggestion is made (68) that the searcher after truth should begin by taking lessons in the science of discrimination, so as to be a good judge of truth before testing the rival claims. But who is a good teacher of such a science? (70). The general conclusion is that philosophy is not worth the pursuit. “If I ever again,” says Hermotimus, “meet a philosopher on the road, I will shun him, as I would a mad dog.”

The Anacharsis is a dialogue between Solon and the Scythian philosopher, who has come to Athens to learn the nature of the Greek institutions. Seeing the young men performing athletic exercises in the Lyceum, he expresses his surprise at such a waste of energy. This gives Socrates an opportunity of descanting at length on training as a discipline, and emulation as a motive for excelling. Love of glory, Solon says, is one of the chief goods in life. The argument is rather ingenious and well put; the style reminds us of the minor essays of Xenophon.

The Alexander or False Prophet is the subject of a separate article (see Alexander the Paphlagonian).

These are the chief of Lucian’s works. Many others, e.g. Prometheus, Menippus, Life of Demonax, Toxaris, Zeus Tragoedus, The Dream or the Cock, Icaromenippus (an amusing satire on the physical philosophers), are of considerable literary value.

(F. A. P.)

Bibliography.—Editio princeps (Florence, 1496); valuable editions with notes by T. Hemsterhuis and J. F. Reitz (1743-1746, with Lexicon Lucianeum by C. C. Reitz) and J. T. Lehmann (1822-1831). Editions of the text by C. Jacobitz (1886-1888) and J. Sommerbrodt (1886-1899). The scholia have been edited by H. Rabe in the Teubner series (1906). There are numerous editions of separate portions of Lucian’s works and translations in most European languages; amongst the latter may be mentioned the German version by C. M. Wieland (1788), with valuable notes and commentaries: English; one by several hands (1711), for which Dryden had previously written an unsatisfactory life of the author, by T. Francklin (1780) and W. Tooke (1820): and French; of The Ass, by P. L. Courier, with full bibliography by A. J. Pons (1887), and of the complete works by E. Talbot (1866) and Belin de Ballu (1789; revised ed. by L. Humbert, 1896). A complete modern English translation, racy and colloquial, appeared in 1905, The Works of Lucian of Samosata, by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler. On Lucian generally, the best work is M. Croiset’s Essai sur la vie et les œuvres de Lucien (1882); see also E. Egger, “Parallèle de Lucien et Voltaire,” in Mémoires de littérature ancienne (1862); C. Martha, Les Moralistes sous l’empire romain (1866); H. W. L. Hime, Lucian, the Syrian Satirist (1900); Sir R. C. Jebb, Essays and Addresses (1907); “Lucian,” by W. L. Collins in Blackwood’s Ancient Classics for English Readers; the Prolegomena to editions of select works with notes by Sommerbrodt; and the exhaustive bibliography of the earlier literature in Engelmann, Scriptores Graeci (1880). On some special questions see E. Rohde, Über Lucians Schrift Δούκιος ἤ Ὄνος (Leipzig, 1869); C. Buerger, De Lucio Patrensi (Berlin, 1887); J. Bernays, Lucian und die Kyniker (Berlin, 1879); C. G. Jacob, Characteristik Lucians von Samosata (Hamburg, 1832); C. F. Hermann, Charakteristik Lucians (Göttingen, 1849); P. M. Bolderman, Studia Lucianea (Leiden, 1893); R. Helm, “Lucian und die Philosophenschulen,” in Neue Jahrb. f. das klassische Altertum (1901), pp. 188, 263, 367.

1 In the Alexander (25) we are told that the province of Pontus, due north of Syria, was “full of Christians.”

2 Philopatris, 12, ὑψιμέδοντα Θεὸν μέγαν ἄμβροτον οὐρανίωνα, υἱὸν Πατρὸς, Πνεῦμα ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, ἔν ἐκ τριῶν καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία, a passage which bears on the controverted procession “a Patre Filioque.”

3 Philopatris, 13. Aesch. Eum. 265, δελτογράφῳ δὲ πάντ᾽ ἐπωπᾷ φρενί.

4 In Hermotimus (51) Hermotimus says to Lycinus (who must be assumed to represent Lucian himself), ὑβριστὴς ἀεὶ σὺ, καὶ οὐκ οἷδ᾽ ὄ τι παθὼν μισεῖς φιλοσοφίαν καὶ ἐς τοῦς φιλοσοφοῦντας ἀποσκώπτεις. In Icaromenippus (5; see also 29) he says he always guessed who were the best physical philosophers “by their sour-faced looks, their paleness of complexion and the length of their beards.”

5 He says (speaking as Σύρος in Bis accusatus, 34) that he found dialogue somewhat out of repute from the too numerous questions (i.e. employed by Plato), and brought it up to a more human and natural standard, substituting banter and repartee for dialectic quibbles and close logical reasoning.

6 He says (p. 127) that he saw punished in Hades, more severely than any other sinners, writers of false narratives, among whom were Ctesias of Cnidus and Herodotus. Yet in the short essay inscribed Herodotus (p. 831), he wishes it were possible for him to imitate the many excellencies of that writer.

7 E.g. “A stone is a body; a living creature is a body; you are a living creature; therefore you are a stone.” Again: “Is every body possessed of life?” “No.” “Is a stone possessed of life?” “No.” “Are you a body?” “Yes.” “A living body?” “Yes.” “Then, if a living body, you are not a stone.”

LUCIFER (d. 370/1), bishop of Cagliari (hence called Caralitanus), an ardent supporter of the cause of Athanasius. After the unfavourable result of the synod of Arles in 353 he volunteered to endeavour to obtain a new and impartial council. He was accordingly sent by Pope Liberius, with Pancratius the presbyter and Hilarius the deacon, but could not prevent the condemnation of Athanasius, which was renewed at Milan in 355. For his own persistent adherence to the orthodox creed he was banished to Germanicia in Commagene; he afterwards lived at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, and finally in the upper Thebaid. His exile came to an end with the publication of Julian’s edict in 362. From 363 until his death in 371 he lived at Cagliari in a state of voluntary separation from ecclesiastical fellowship with his former friends Eusebius of Vercelli, Athanasius and the rest, on account of their mild decision at the synod of Alexandria in 362 with reference to the treatment of those who had unwillingly Arianized under the persecutions of Constantius. Lucifer was hardly sufficiently educated to appreciate the real question at issue, and the sect which he thus founded did not continue long after his death. It is doubtful whether it ever formulated any distinctive doctrine; certainly it developed none of any importance. The memory of Lucifer is still cherished in Sardinia; but, although popularly regarded there as a saint, he has never been canonized.

The controversial writings of Lucifer, dating from his exile, are chiefly remarkable for their passionate zeal, and for the boldness and violence of the language addressed to the reigning emperor, whom he did not scruple to call the enemy of God and a second Saul, Ahab and Jeroboam. Their titles, in the most probable chronological order, are De non parcendis in Deum delinquentibus, De regibus apostaticis, Ad Constantium Augustum pro Athanasio libri ii., De non conveniendo cum haereticis and Moriendum esse pro Filio Dei. Their quotations of Scripture are of considerable value to the critical student of the Latin text before Jerome. They were first collected and edited by Tilius (Paris, 1568); the best edition is that of W. Hartel in the Vienna Corpus, Script. Eccl. Lat. (1886). See also G. Krüger, Lucifer Bischof von Cagliari und das Schisma der Luciferianer (Leipzig, 1886); F. G. Kenyon, Textual Criticism, pp. 181, 221.

LUCIFER (the Latinized form of Gr. φωσφόρος, “light-bearer”), the name given to the “morning star,” i.e. the planet Venus when it appears above the E. horizon before sunrise, and sometimes also to the “evening star,” i.e. the same planet in the W. sky after sundown, more usually called Hesperus (q.v.). The term “day star” (so rendered in the Revised Version) was used poetically by Isaiah for the king of Babylon: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations” (Is. xiv. 12, Authorized Version). The words ascribed to Christ in Luke x. 18: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (cf. Rev. ix. 1), were interpreted by the Christian Fathers as referring to the passage in Isaiah; whence, in Christian theology, Lucifer came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall. This idea finds its most magnificent literary expression in Milton’s Paradise Lost. In this sense the name is most commonly associated with the familiar phrase “as proud as Lucifer.”

LUCILIUS, GAIUS (c. 180-103 B.C.), the earliest Roman satirist, of whose writings only fragments remain, was born at Suessa Aurunca in Campania. The dates assigned by Jerome for his birth and death are 148 and 103 or 102 B.C. But it is impossible to reconcile the first of these dates with other facts recorded of him, and the date given by Jerome must be due to an error, the true date being about 180 B.C. We learn from Velleius Paterculus that he served under Scipio at the siege of Numantia in 134. We learn from Horace that he lived on the most intimate terms of friendship with Scipio and Laelius, and that he celebrated the exploits and virtues of the former in his satires. Fragments of those books of his satires which seem to have been first given to the world (books xxvi.-xxix.) clearly indicate that they were written in the lifetime of Scipio. Some of these bring the poet before us as either corresponding with, or engaged in controversial conversation with, his great friend. One line—

Percrepa pugnam Popilli, facta Corneli cane—

in which the defeat of M. Popillius Laenas, in 138, is contrasted with the subsequent success of Scipio, bears the stamp of having been written while the news of the capture of Numantia was still fresh. It is in the highest degree improbable that Lucilius served in the army at the age of fourteen; it is still more unlikely that he could have been admitted into the familiar intimacy of Scipio and Laelius at that age. It seems a moral impossibility that between the age of fifteen and nineteen—i.e. between 133 and 129, the year of Scipio’s death—he could have come before the world as the author of an entirely new kind of composition, and one which, to be at all successful, demands especially maturity of judgment and experience. It may further be said that the well-known words of Horace (Satires, ii. 1, 33), in which he characterizes the vivid portraiture of his life, character and thoughts, which Lucilius bequeathed to the world,

quo fit ut omnis Votiva pateat veluti descripta tabella Vita senis,1

lose much of their force unless senis is to be taken in its ordinary sense—which it cannot be if Lucilius died at the age of forty-six. He spent the greater part of his life at Rome, and died, according to Jerome, at Naples. Lucilius belonged to the equestrian order, a fact indicated by Horace’s notice of himself as “infra Lucili censum.” Though not himself belonging to any of the great senatorial families, he was in a position to associate with them on equal terms. This circumstance contributed to the boldness, originality and thoroughly national character of his literary work. Had he been a “semi-Graecus,” like Ennius and Pacuvius, or of humble origin, like Plautus, Terence or Accius, he would scarcely have ventured, at a time when the senatorial power was strongly in the ascendant, to revive the rôle which had proved disastrous to Naevius; nor would he have had the intimate knowledge of the political and social life of his day which fitted him to be its painter. Another circumstance determining the bent of his mind was the character of the time. The origin of Roman political and social satire is to be traced to the same disturbing and disorganizing forces which led to the revolutionary projects and legislation of the Gracchi.

The reputation which Lucilius enjoyed in the best ages of Roman literature is proved by the terms in which Cicero and Horace speak of him. Persius, Juvenal and Quintilian vouch for the admiration with which he was regarded in the first century of the empire. The popularity which he enjoyed in his own time is attested by the fact that at his death, although he had filled none of the offices of state, he received the honour of a public funeral. His chief claim to distinction is his literary originality. He may be called the inventor of poetical satire, as he was the first to impress upon the rude inartistic medley, known to the Romans by the name of satura, that character of aggressive and censorious criticism of persons, morals, manners, politics, literature, &c. which the word satire has ever since denoted. In point of form the satire of Lucilius owed nothing to the Greeks. It was a legitimate development of an indigenous dramatic entertainment, popular among the Romans before the first introduction of the forms of Greek art among them; and it seems largely also to have employed the form of the familiar epistle. But the style, substance and spirit of his writings were apparently as original as the form. He seems to have commenced his poetical career by ridiculing and parodying the conventional language of epic and tragic poetry, and to have used the language commonly employed in the social intercourse of educated men. Even his frequent use of Greek words, phrases and quotations, reprehended by Horace, was probably taken from the actual practice of men, who found their own speech as yet inadequate to give free expression to the new ideas and impressions which they derived from their first contact with Greek philosophy, rhetoric and poetry. Further, he not only created a style of his own, but, instead of taking the substance of his writings from Greek poetry, or from a remote past, he treated of the familiar matters of daily life, of the politics, the wars, the administration of justice, the eating and drinking, the money-making and money-spending, the scandals and vices, which made up the public and private life of Rome in the last quarter of the 2nd century B.C. This he did in a singularly frank, independent and courageous spirit, with no private ambition to serve, or party cause to advance, but with an honest desire to expose the iniquity or incompetence of the governing body, the sordid aims of the middle class, and the corruption and venality of the city mob. There was nothing of stoical austerity or of rhetorical indignation in the tone in which he treated the vices and follies of his time. His character and tastes were much more akin to those of Horace than of either Persius or Juvenal. But he was what Horace was not, a thoroughly good hater; and he lived at a time when the utmost freedom of speech and the most unrestrained indulgence of public and private animosity were the characteristics of men who took a prominent part in affairs. Although Lucilius took no active part in the public life of his time, he regarded it in the spirit of a man of the world and of society, as well as a man of letters. His ideal of public virtue and private worth had been formed by intimate association with the greatest and best of the soldiers and statesmen of an older generation.

The remains of Lucilius extend to about eleven hundred, mostly unconnected lines, most of them preserved by late grammarians, as illustrative of peculiar verbal usages. He was, for his time, a voluminous as well as a very discursive writer. He left behind him thirty books of satires, and there is reason to believe that each book, like the books of Horace and Juvenal, was composed of different pieces. The order in which they were known to the grammarians was not that in which they were written. The earliest in order of composition were probably those numbered from xxvi. to xxix., which were written in the trochaic and iambic metres that had been employed by Ennius and Pacuvius in their Saturae. In these he made those criticisms on the older tragic and epic poets of which Horace and other ancient writers speak. In them too he speaks of the Numantine War as recently finished, and of Scipio as still living. Book i., on the other hand, in which the philosopher Carneades, who died in 128, is spoken of as dead, must have been written after the death of Scipio. Most of the satires of Lucilius were written in hexameters, but, so far as an opinion can be formed from a number of unconnected fragments, he seems to have written the trochaic tetrameter with a smoothness, clearness and simplicity which he never attained in handling the hexameter. The longer fragments produce the impression of great discursiveness and carelessness, but at the same time of considerable force. He appears, in the composition of his various pieces, to have treated everything that occurred to him in the most desultory fashion, sometimes adopting the form of dialogue, sometimes that of an epistle or an imaginary discourse, and often to have spoken in his own name, giving an account of his travels and adventures, or of amusing scenes that he had witnessed, or expressing the results of his private meditations and experiences. Like Horace he largely illustrated his own observations by personal anecdotes and fables. The fragments clearly show how often Horace has imitated him, not only in expression, but in the form of his satires (see for instance i. 5 and ii. 2), in the topics which he treats of, and the class of social vices and the types of character which he satirizes. For students of Latin literature, the chief interest of studying the fragments of Lucilius consists in the light which they throw on the aims and methods of Horace in the composition of his satires, and, though not to the same extent, of his epistles. They are important also as materials for linguistic study; and they have considerable historical value.

Editions by F. D. Gerlach (1846), L. Müller (1872), C. Lachmann (1876, posthumous), F. Marx (1905); see also L. Müller, Leben und Werke des Lucilius (1876); “Luciliana,” by H. A. J. Munro, in the Journal of Philology, vii. (1877); Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, bk. iv. ch. 13; “Luciliana,” by A. E. Housman, in Classical Quarterly (April, 1907); C. Cichorius, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (Berlin, 1908).

(W. Y. S.; X.)

1 “And so it happens that the whole life of the old man stands clearly before us, as if it were represented on a votive picture.”

LUCILIUS JUNIOR, a friend and correspondent of the younger Seneca, probably the author of Aetna, a poem on the origin of volcanic activity, variously attributed to Virgil, Cornelius Severus (epic poet of the Augustan age) and Manilius. Its composition has been placed as far back as 44 B.C., on the ground that certain works of art, known to have been removed to Rome about that date, are referred to as being at a distance from the city. But as the author appears to have known and made use of the Quaestiones Naturales of Seneca (written A.D. 65), and no mention is made of the great eruption of Vesuvius (A.D. 79), the time of its composition seems to lie between these two dates. In favour of the authorship of Lucilius are the facts that he was a friend of Seneca and acquainted with his writings; that he had for some time held the office of imperial procurator of Sicily, and was thus familiar with the locality; that he was the author of a poem on Sicilian subjects. It is objected that in the 79th letter of Seneca, which is the chief authority on the question, he apparently asks that Lucilius should introduce the hackneyed theme of Aetna merely as an episode in his contemplated poem, not make it the subject of separate treatment. The sources of the Aetna are Posidonius of Apamea, and perhaps the pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo, while there are many reminiscences of Lucretius. It has come down in a very corrupt state, and its difficulties are increased by the unpoetical nature of the subject, the straining after conciseness, and the obtrusive use of metaphor.

Editions by J. Scaliger (1595), F. Jacob (1826), H. A. J. Munro (1867), M. Haupt (in his edition of Virgil, 1873), E. Bährens (in Poetae latini minores, ii), S. Sudhaus (1898), R. Ellis (1901, containing a bibliography of the subject); see also M. Haupt’s Opuscula, i. 40, ii. 27, 162, iii. 437 (notes, chiefly critical); R. Ellis in Journal of Philology, xvi. 292; P. R. Wagler, De Aetna poemate quaestiones criticae (1884); B. Kruczkiewicz, Poema de Aetna Monte (1883, in which the ancient view of the authorship of Virgil is upheld); L. Alzinger, Studia in Aetnam collata (1896); R. Hildebrandt, Beiträge zur Erklärung des Gedichtes Aetna (1900); J. Vessereau (text, translation and commentary, 1905); Teuffel-Schwabe, Hist. of Roman Literature (Eng. trans. §§ 307, 308).

LUCINA, goddess of light, a title given to Juno and Diana as presiding over childbirth and bringing children into the light of the world. The full name is lucina dea, “the light-bringing goddess” (lux, light, hence adj. lucinus). It is also given to Hecate (Tibullus 3. 4. 13), as the bringer of terrible dreams, and is used metaphorically as a synonym for child-birth (Virg. Georg, iii. 60; Ovid, Ars. Amai. iii. 785).

LUCIUS, the name of three popes.

Lucius I., pope for eight months (253-254), spent a short period of his pontificate in exile. He is referred to in several letters of Cyprian (see Epist. lxviii. 5) as having been in agreement with his predecessor Cornelius in preferring the milder view on the question as to how the lapsed penitent should be treated. He is commemorated on the 4th of March.

(L. D.*)

Lucius II. (Gherardo Caccianemici dal Orso), pope from the 12th of March 1144 to the 15th of February 1145, a Bolognese, successively canon at his native city, cardinal priest of Sta Croce in Gerusalemme, treasurer of the Roman Church, papal legate in Germany for Honorius II., chancellor and librarian under Innocent II., was the successor of Celestine II. His stormy pontificate was marked by the erection of a revolutionary republic at Rome which sought to deprive the pope of his temporal power, and by the recognition of papal suzerainty over Portugal. He was succeeded by Eugenius III.

His letters are in J. P. Migne, Patrol. Lat. vol. 179. A single unreliable writer, Godfrey of Viterbo (in J. M. Watterich, Pontif. Roman. Vitae), is authority for the statement that Lucius II. perished in an attempt to storm the Capitol. See Jaffé-Wittenbach, Regesta pontif. Roman. (1885-1888); J. Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche von Gregor VII. bis Innocenz III. (Bonn, 1893); F. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. 4, trans. by Mrs G. W. Hamilton (London, 1896).

Lucius III. (Ubaldo Allucingoli), pope from the 1st of September 1181 to the 25th of November 1185, a native of Lucca and a Cistercian monk, named cardinal-priest of Sta Prassede by Innocent II. and cardinal-bishop of Ostia and Velletri by Adrian IV., succeeded Alexander III. He lived at Rome from November 1181 to March 1182, but dissensions in the city compelled him to pass the remainder of his pontificate in exile, mainly at Velletri, Anagni and Verona. He disputed with the emperor Frederick I. the disposal of the territories of the Countess Matilda. In November 1184 he held a synod at Verona which condemned the Cathari, Paterines, Waldensians and Arnoldists, and anathematized all heretics and their abettors. Lucius died in the midst of preparations for a crusade in answer to appeals of Baldwin IV. of Jerusalem. His successor was Urban III.

His letters are in J. P. Migne, Patrol. Lat. vol. 201. Consult J. M. Watterich, Pontif. Roman. Vitae, vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1862); and Jaffé-Wattenbach, Regesta Pontif. Roman. (1885-1888). See J. Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche von Gregor VII. bis Innocenz III. (Bonn, 1893); F. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. 4, trans. by Mrs G. W. Hamilton (London, 1896); P. Scheffer-Boichorst, “Zu den mathildinischen Schenkungen,” in Mittheilungen des österreichen Instituts (1888).

(C. H. Ha.)

LUCK, a term for good or bad fortune, the unforeseen or unrecognized causes which bring success or failure in any enterprise, particularly used of the result of chances in games of skill or chance (see Probability). The word does not occur in English before the 16th century. It was taken from the Low Ger. luk, a shortened form of geluk, cf. Modern Ger. Glück, happiness, good fortune. The New English Dictionary considers the word to have been introduced from the Low Countries as a gambling term. The ultimate origin is doubtful; it has been connected with the German gelingen, to succeed (cf. Druck, pressure, from dringen), or with locken, to entice.

At Eden Hall in Cumberland, the seat of the Musgrave family, has been long preserved a vessel known as “the luck,” supposed to be of Venetian or Byzantine make, and dating from the 10th century. It is a chalice of enamelled glass, and on its safe preservation the fortunes of the Musgrave family are supposed to depend, in accordance with the rhyme:—

“Should this cup either break or fall, Farewell the luck of Edenhall.”

LÜCKE, GOTTFRIED CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH (1791-1855), German theologian, was born on the 24th of August 1791, at Egeln near Magdeburg, where his father was a merchant. He studied theology at Halle and Göttingen. In 1813 he became repetent at Göttingen, and in 1814 he received the degree of doctor in philosophy from Halle; in 1816 he removed to Berlin, where he became licentiate in theology, and qualified as privat-docent. He soon became intimate with Schleiermacher and de Wette, and was associated with them in 1819 in the redaction of the Theologische Zeitschrift. Meanwhile his lectures and publications (among the latter a Grundriss der Neutestamentlichen Hermeneutik, 1816) had brought him into considerable repute, and he was appointed professor extraordinarius in the new university of Bonn in the spring of 1818; in the following autumn he became professor ordinarius. From Bonn, where he had J. C. W. Augusti (1772-1841), J. K. L. Gieseler, and Karl Immanuel Nitzsch for colleagues, he was called in 1827 to Göttingen to succeed K. F. Stäudlin (1761-1826). In that year he helped to found the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, the chief organ of the “mediation” theology (Vermittelungstheologie). At Göttingen he remained, declining all further calls elsewhere, as to Erlangen, Kiel, Halle, Tübingen, Jena and Leipzig, until his death, which occurred on the 4th of February 1855.

Lücke, who was one of the most learned, many-sided and influential of the so-called “mediation” school of evangelical theologians (Vermittelungstheologie), is now chiefly known by his Kommentar über die Schriften d. Evangelisten Johannes (4 vols., 1820-1832); it has since passed through two new and improved editions (the last volume of the 3rd edition by E. Bertheau, 1856). He is an intelligent maintainer of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel; in connexion with this thesis he was one of the first to argue for the early date and non-apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse. His Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis was published in 1832 (2nd ed., 1848-1852). He also published a Synopsis Evangeliorum, conjointly with W. M. L. de Wette (1818, 2nd ed., 1840). See Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie.

LUCKENWALDE, a town in the Prussian province of Brandenburg, on the Nuthe, 30 m. S. of Berlin, on the main line to Dresden and Leipzig. Pop. (1905) 22,263. Its cloth and wool manufactories are among the most extensive in Prussia. Among its other industries are cotton printing and dye works, brewing, and the making of metal and bronze goods.

The site of Luckenwalde was occupied in the 12th century by a Cistercian monastery, but the village did not spring up till the reign of Frederick the Great. It was made a town in 1808.

LUCKNOW, a city, district and division of British India. The city was the capital of Oudh from 1775 until it was merged in the United Provinces in 1901. Pop. (1901) 264,049. It lies mainly on the right bank of the winding river Gumti, which is crossed by two railway and three road bridges. It contains the Canning college (1864), with an Oriental department, and La Martinière college, where about 100 boys are educated, the institution being in part supported by an endowment left by General Claude Martin in 1800. There are native manufactures of gold and silver brocade, muslins, embroidery, brass and copper wares, pottery and moulding in clay. There are also important European industrial establishments, such as iron-works and paper-mills. Lucknow is the centre of the Oudh and Rohilkhand railway system, with large workshops. Lines radiate to Cawnpore, Bareilly, Gonda, Fyzabad and Rae Bareli. Lucknow is the headquarters of the 8th division of the northern army. The cantonments are situated 3 m. E. of the city.

Lucknow is chiefly notable in the history of British India as the capital of the nawabs who had dealings with Warren Hastings, and their successors the kings of Oudh, whose deposition by Lord Dalhousie was one of the chief causes of the Mutiny. Amongst the events of the Mutiny the defence of the residency of Lucknow comes only second in historic interest to the massacre at Cawnpore itself. For the two sieges, see Indian Mutiny. The name of the residency is now applied not only to the residency itself, but to the whole of the outbuildings and entrenchments in which Sir Henry Lawrence concentrated his small force. These entrenchments covered almost 60 acres of ground, and consisted of a number of detached houses, public edifices, outhouses and casual buildings, netted together, and welded by ditches, parapets, stockades and batteries into one connected whole. On the summit of the plateau stands the residency proper, the official residence of the chief commissioner, a lofty building three storeys high, with a fine portico. Near the residency comes the banqueting hall, and beyond the Baillie Guardgate lie the ruins of the surgeon’s house, where Sir Henry Lawrence died of a shell-wound, and where the ladies of the garrison were sheltered in underground rooms. Round the line of the entrenchments are pillars marked with the name of the various “posts” into which the garrison was distributed. The most dangerous of these was the Cawnpore battery post, where the stockade was directly exposed to the enemy’s fire. The mutineers had rifles fixed in rests in the house opposite, and swept the road that led through the residency enclosure at this point. Close to the residency is the Lawrence Memorial, an artificial mound 30 ft. high crowned by a marble cross.

Among the other buildings of interest in Lucknow is the Imambara, which is one of the largest rooms in the world (162 ft. by 54), having an arched roof without supports. This room was built by the Nawab Asaf-ud-dowlah in 1784, to afford relief to the famine-stricken people. The many monuments of his reign include his country palace of Bibiapur, outside the city. Among later bulldings are the two palaces of Chhattar Manzil, erected for the wives of Ghazi-ud-din Haidar (1814), the remains of the Farhat Baksh, dating from the previous reign, and adjoining the greater Chhattar Manzil, the observatory (now a bank) of Nasir-ud-din Haidar (1827), the imambara or mausoleum and the unfinished great mosque (Jama Masjid) of Mahommed Ali Shah (1837), and the huge debased Kaisar Bagh, the palace of Wajid Ali Shah (1847-1856).

The District of Lucknow lies on both sides of the river Gumti, and has an area of 967 sq. m. Its general aspect is that of an open champaign, well studded with villages, finely wooded and in parts most fertile and highly cultivated. In the vicinity of rivers, however, stretch extensive barren sandy tracts (bhúr), and there are many wastes of saline efflorescence (usár). The country is an almost dead level, the average slope, which is from N.W. to S.E., being less than a foot per mile. The principal rivers are the Gumti and the Sai with their tributaries. The population in 1901 was 793,241, showing an increase of 2.5% in the preceding decade.

The Division of Lucknow contains the western half of the old province of Oudh. It comprises the six districts of Lucknow, Unao, Sitapur, Rae Bareli, Hardoi and Kheri. Its area is 12,051 sq. m. and its population in 1901 was 5,977,086, showing an increase of 2.06% in the decade.

See Lucknow District Gazetteer (Allahabad, 1904). For a fuller description of the city see G. W. Forrest, Cities of India (1903).

LUÇON, a town of western France, in the department of Vendée, 23 m. S.E. of La Roche-sur-Yon, on the railway from Nantes to Bordeaux, and on the canal of Luçon (9 m. long), which affords communication with the sea in the Bay of Aiguillon. Pop. (1906) 6163. Between Luçon and the sea stretch marshy plains, the bed of the former gulf, partly drained by numerous canals, and in the reclaimed parts yielding excellent pasturage, while in other parts are productive salt-marshes, and ponds for the rearing of mussels and other shell-fish. Luçon is the seat of a bishopric, established in 1317, and held by Richelieu from 1607 to 1624. The cathedral, partly of the 12th-century and partly of later periods, was originally an abbey church. The façade and the clock tower date from about 1700, and the tower is surmounted by a crocketed spire rising 275 ft. above the ground, attributed to the architect François Leduc of Tuscany. The cloisters are of the late 15th century. Adjacent is the bishop’s palace, possessing a large theological library and Titian’s “Disciples of Emmaus,” and there is a fine public garden. A communal college and an ecclesiastical seminary are among the public institutions. During the Vendean wars, Luçon was the scene of several conflicts, notably in 1793.

LUCRE (Lat. lucrum, gain; the Indo-European root is seen in Gr. ἀπολάυειν, to enjoy, and in Ger. Lohn, wages), a term now only used in the disparaging sense of unworthy profit, or money that is the object of greed, especially in the expression “filthy lucre” (1 Tim. iii. 3). In the adjective “lucrative,” profitable, there is, however, no sense of disparagement. In Scots law the term “lucrative succession” (lucrativa acquisitio) is used of the taking by an heir, during the lifetime of his ancestor, of a free grant of any part of the heritable property.

LUCRETIA, a Roman lady, wife of Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, distinguished for her beauty and domestic virtues. Having been outraged by Sextus Tarquinius, one of the sons of Tarquinius Superbus, she informed her father and her husband, and, having exacted an oath of vengeance from them, stabbed herself to death. Lucius Junius Brutus, her husband’s cousin, put himself at the head of the people, drove out the Tarquins, and established a republic. The accounts of this tradition in later writers present many points of divergence.

Livy i. 57-59; Dion. Halic. iv. 64-67, 70, 82; Ovid, Fasti, ii. 721-852; Dio Cassius, frag. 11 (Bekker); G. Cornewall Lewis, Credibility of Early Roman History, i.

LUCRETILIS MONS, a mountain of the Sabine territory, mentioned by Horace (Od. i. 17, 1) as visible from his Sabine farm, and probably identical with the “Mons Lucretius” mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, i. 183), which speaks of “possessio in territorio Sabinensi quae cognominatur ad duas casas sub monte Lucretio” in the time of Constantine. The name “ad duas casas” is supposed to survive in the chapel of the Madonna della Casa near Rocca Giovane, and the Mons Lucretilis is generally (and rightly) identified with Monte Gennaro, a limestone peak 4160 ft. high, which forms a prominent feature in the view N.E. of Rome. Excavations on the supposed site of Horace’s farm were begun by Professor Pasqui in September 1909.

(T. As.)

LUCRETIUS (Titus Lucretius Carus) (c. 98-55 B.C.), the great Latin didactic poet. Our sole information concerning his life is found in the brief summary of Jerome, written more than four centuries after the poet’s death. Jerome followed, often carelessly, the accounts contained in the lost work of Suetonius De Viris Illustribus, written about two centuries after the death of Lucretius; and, although it is likely that Suetonius used the information transmitted by earlier grammarians, there is nothing to guide us to the original sources. According to this account the poet was born in 95 B.C.; he became mad in consequence of the administration of a love-philtre; and after composing several books in his lucid intervals, which were subsequently corrected by Cicero, he died by his own hand in the forty-fourth year of his age. Donatus states in his life of Virgil, a work also based on the lost work of Suetonius, that Lucretius died on the same day on which Virgil assumed the toga virilis, that is, in the seventeenth year of Virgil’s life, and on the very day on which he was born, and adds that the consuls were the same, that is Cn. Pompeius Magnus and M. Licinius Crassus, consuls in 70 and again in 55. The statements cannot be perfectly reconciled; but we may say with certainty that Lucretius was born between 98 and 95 B.C., and died in 55 or 54. A single mention of his poem, the De rerum natura (which from the condition in which it has reached us may be assumed to have been published posthumously) in a letter of Cicero’s to his brother Quintus, written early in 54 B.C., confirms the date given by Donatus as that of the poet’s death. The statements of Jerome have been questioned or disbelieved on the ground of their intrinsic improbability. They have been regarded as a fiction invented later by the enemies of Epicureanism, with the view of discrediting the most powerful work ever produced by any disciple of that sect. It is more in conformity with ancient credulity than with modern science to attribute a permanent tendency to derangement to the accidental administration of any drug, however potent. A work characterized by such strength, consistency and continuity of thought is not likely to have been composed “in the intervals of madness” as Jerome says. Donatus, in mentioning the poet’s death, gives no hint of the act of suicide. The poets of the Augustan age, who were deeply interested both in his philosophy and in his poetry, are entirely silent about the tragical story of his life. Cicero, by his professed antagonism to the doctrines of Epicurus, by his inadequate appreciation of Lucretius himself and by the indifference which he shows to other contemporary poets, seems to have been neither fitted for the task of correcting the unfinished work of a writer whose genius was so distinct from his own, nor likely to have cordially undertaken such a task.

Yet these considerations do not lead to the absolute rejection of the story. The evidence afforded by the poem rather leads to the conclusion that the tradition contains some germ of fact. It is remarkable that in more than one passage of his poem Lucretius writes with extraordinary vividness of the impression produced both by dreams and by waking visions. It is true that the philosophy of Epicurus put great stress on these, as affording the explanation of the origin of supernatural beliefs. But the insistence with which Lucretius returns to the subject, and the horror with which he recalls the effects of such abnormal phenomena, suggest that he himself may have been liable to such hallucinations, which are said to be consistent with perfect sanity, though they may be the precursors either of madness or of a state of despair and melancholy. Other passages, where he describes himself as ever engaged, even in his dreams, on his task of inquiry and composition, produce the impression of an unrelieved strain of mind and feeling, which may have ended in some extreme reaction of spirit, or in some failure of intellectual power, that may have led him to commit suicide. But the strongest confirmation of the tradition is the unfinished condition in which the poem has reached us. The subject appears indeed to have been fully treated in accordance with the plan sketched out in the introduction to the first book. But that book is the only one which is finished in style and in the arrangement of its matter. In all the others, and especially in the last three, the continuity of the argument is frequently broken by passages which must have been inserted after the first draft of the arguments was written out. Thus, for instance, in his account of the transition from savage to civilized life, he assumes at v. 1011 the discovery of the use of skins, fire, &c., and the first beginning of civil society, and proceeds at 1028 to explain the origin of language, and then again returns, from 1090 to 1160, to speculate upon the first use of fire and the earliest stages of political life. These breaks in continuity show what might also be inferred from frequent repetitions of lines which have appeared earlier in the poem, and from the rough workmanship of passages in the later books, that the poem could not have received the final revision of the author. Nor is there any great difficulty in believing that Cicero edited it; the word “emendavit,” need not mean more than what we call “preparing for press.”

From the absence of any claim on the part of any other district of Italy to the honour of having given birth to Lucretius it is inferred that he was of purely Roman origin. No writer certainly is more purely Roman in personal character and in strength of understanding. His silence on the subject of Roman greatness and glory as contrasted with the prominence of these subjects in the poetry of men of provincial birth such as Ennius, Virgil and Horace, may be explained by the principle that familiarity had made the subject one of less wonder and novelty to him. The Lucretian gens to which he belonged was one of the oldest of the great Roman houses, nor do we hear of the name, as we do of other great family names, as being diffused over other parts of Italy, or as designating men of obscure or servile origin. It may well be assumed that Lucretius was a member of the Roman aristocracy, belonging either to a senatorian or to one of the great equestrian families. If the Roman aristocracy of his time had lost much of the virtue and of the governing qualities of their ancestors, they showed in the last years before the establishment of monarchy a taste for intellectual culture which might have made Rome as great in literature as in arms and law. A new taste for philosophy had developed among members of the governing class during the youth of Lucretius, and eminent Greek teachers of the Epicurean sect settled at Rome at the same time, and lived on terms of intimacy with them. The inference that Lucretius belonged to this class is confirmed by the tone in which he addresses Gaius Memmius, a man of an eminent senatorian family, to whom the poem is dedicated. His tone is quite unlike that in which Virgil or even Horace addresses Maecenas. He addresses him as an equal; he expresses sympathy with the prominent part he played in public life, and admiration for his varied accomplishments, but on his own subject claims to speak to him with authority.

Although our conception of the poet’s life is necessarily vague and meagre, yet his personal force is so remarkable and so vividly impressed on his poem, that we seem able to form a consistent idea of his qualities and characteristics. We know, for example, that the choice of a contemplative life was not the result of indifference to the fate of the world, or of any natural coldness or even calmness of temperament. In the opening lines of the second and third books we can mark the recoil of a humane and sensitive spirit from the horrors of the reign of terror which he witnessed in his youth, and from the anarchy and confusion which prevailed at Rome during his later years. We may also infer that he had not been through his whole career so much estranged from the social life of his day as he seems to have been in his later years. Passages in his poem attest his familiarity with the pomp and luxury of city life, with the attractions of the public games and with the pageantry of great military spectacles. But much the greater mass of the illustrations of his philosophy indicate that, while engaged on his poem he must have passed much of his time in the open air, exercising at once the keen observation of a naturalist and the contemplative vision of a poet. He seems to have found a pleasure, more congenial to the modern than to the ancient temperament, in ascending mountains or wandering among their solitudes (vi. 469, iv. 575). References to companionship in these wanderings, and the well-known description of the charm of a rustic meal (ii. 29) speak of kindly sociality rather than of any austere separation from his fellows.

Other expressions in his poem (e.g. iii. 10, &c.) imply that he was also a student of books. Foremost among these were the writings of Epicurus; but he had also an intimate knowledge of the philosophical poem of Empedocles, and at least an acquaintance with the works of Democritus, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Plato and the Stoical writers. Of other Greek prose writers he knew Thucydides and Hippocrates; while of the poets he expresses in more than one passage the highest admiration of Homer, whom he imitated in several places. Next to Homer Euripides is most frequently reproduced by him. But his poetical sympathy was not limited to the poets of Greece. For his own countryman Ennius he expresses an affectionate admiration; and he imitates his language, his rhythm and his manner in many places. The fragments of the old tragedian Pacuvius and of the satirist Lucilius show that Lucretius had made use of their expressions and materials. In his studies he was attracted by the older writers, both Greek and Roman, in whose masculine temperament and understanding he recognized an affinity with his own.

His devotion to Epicurus seems at first sight more difficult to explain than his enthusiasm for Empedocles or Ennius. Probably he found in his calmness of temperament, even in his want of imagination, a sense of rest and of exemption from the disturbing influences of life; while in his physical philosophy he found both an answer to the questions which perplexed him and an inexhaustible stimulus to his intellectual curiosity. The combative energy, the sense of superiority, the spirit of satire, characteristic of him as a Roman, unite with his loyalty to Epicurus to render him not only polemical but intolerant and contemptuous in his tone toward the great antagonists of his system, the Stoics, whom, while constantly referring to them, he does not condescend even to name. With his admiration of the genius of others he combines a strong sense of his own power. He is quite conscious of the great importance and of the difficulty of his task; but he feels his own ability to cope with it.

It is more difficult to infer the moral than the intellectual characteristics of a great writer from the personal impress left by him on his work. Yet it is not too much to say that there is no work in any literature that produces a profounder impression of sincerity. No writer shows a juster scorn of all mere rhetoric and exaggeration. No one shows truer courage, not marred by irreverence, in confronting the great problems of human destiny, or greater strength in triumphing over human weakness. No one shows a truer humanity and a more tender sympathy with natural sorrow.

The peculiarity of the poem of Lucretius, that which makes it unique in literature, is that it is a reasoned system of philosophy, written in verse. The prosaic title De Rerum Natura, a translation of the Gr. περὶ φύσεως, implies the subordination of the artistic to a speculative motive. As in the case of nearly all the great works of Roman literary genius, the form of the poem was borrowed from the Greeks. The rise of speculative philosophy in Greece was coincident with the beginning of prose composition, and many of the earliest philosophers wrote in the prose of the Ionic dialect; others, however, and especially the writers of the Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily, expounded their systems in continuous poems composed in the epic hexameter. Most famous in connexion with this kind of poetry are Xenophanes and Parmenides, the Eleatics and Empedocles of Agrigentum. The last was less important as a philosopher, but greater than the others both as a poet and a physicist. On both of these grounds he had a greater attraction to Lucretius. The fragments of the poem of Empedocles show that the Roman poet regarded that work as his model. In accordance with this model he has given to his own poem the form of a personal address, he has developed his argument systematically, and has applied the sustained impetus of epic poetry to the treatment of some of the driest and abstrusest topics. Many ideas and expressions of the Sicilian have been reproduced by the Roman poet; and the same tone of impassioned solemnity and melancholy seems to have pervaded both works. But Lucretius, if less original as a thinker, was probably a much greater poet than Empedocles. What chiefly distinguishes him from his Greek prototypes is that his purpose is rather ethical than purely speculative; the zeal of a teacher and reformer is more strong in him than even the intellectual passion of a thinker. His speculative ideas, his moral teaching and his poetical power are indeed interdependent on one another, and this interdependence is what mainly constitutes their power and interest. But of the three claims which he makes to immortality, the importance of his subject, his desire to liberate the mind from the bonds of superstition and the charm and lucidity of his poetry—that which he himself regarded as supreme was the second. The main idea of the poem is the irreconcilable opposition between the truth of the laws of nature and the falsehood of the old superstitions. But, further, the happiness and the dignity of life are regarded by him as absolutely dependent on the acceptance of the true and the rejection of the false doctrine. In the Epicurean system of philosophy he believed that he had found the weapons by which this war of liberation could be most effectually waged. Following Epicurus he sets before himself the aim of finally crushing that fear of the gods and that fear of death resulting from it which he regards as the source of all the human ills. Incidentally he desires also to purify the heart from other violent passions which corrupt it and mar its peace. But the source even of these—the passions of ambition and avarice—he finds in the fear of death; and that fear he resolves into the fear of eternal punishment after death.

The selection of his subject and the order in which it is treated are determined by this motive. Although the title of the poem implies that it is a treatise on the “whole nature of things,” the aim of Lucretius is to treat only those branches of science which are necessary to clear the mind from the fear of the gods and the terrors of a future state. In the two earliest books, accordingly, he lays down and largely illustrates the first principles of being with the view of showing that the world is not governed by capricious agency, but has come into existence, continues in existence, and will ultimately pass away in accordance with the primary conditions of the elemental atoms which, along with empty space, are the only eternal and immutable substances. These atoms are themselves infinite in number but limited in their varieties, and by their ceaseless movement and combinations during infinite time and through infinite space the whole process of creation is maintained. In the third book he applies the principles of the atomic philosophy to explain the nature of the mind and vital principle, with the view of showing that the soul perishes with the body. In the fourth book he discusses the Epicurean doctrine of the images, which are cast from all bodies, and which act either on the senses or immediately on the mind, in dreams or waking visions, as affording the explanation of the belief in the continued existence of the spirits of the departed. The fifth book, which has the most general interest, professes to explain the process by which the earth, the sea, the sky, the sun, moon and stars, were formed, the origin of life, and the gradual advance of man from the most savage to the most civilized condition. All these topics are treated with the view of showing that the world is not itself divine nor directed by divine agency. The sixth book is devoted to the explanation, in accordance with natural causes, of some of the more abnormal phenomena, such as thunderstorms, volcanoes, earthquakes, &c., which are special causes of supernatural terrors.

The consecutive study of the argument produces on most readers a mixed feeling of dissatisfaction and admiration. They are repelled by the dryness of much of the matter, the unsuitableness of many of the topics discussed for poetic treatment, the arbitrary assumption of premises, the entire failure to establish the connexion between the concrete phenomena which the author professes to explain and these assumptions, and the erroneousness of many of the doctrines which are stated with dogmatic confidence. On the other hand, they are constantly impressed by his power of reasoning both deductively and inductively, by the subtlety and fertility of invention with which he applies analogies, by the clearness and keenness of his observation, by the fulness of matter with which his mind is stored, and by the consecutive force, the precision and distinctness of his style, when employed in the processes of scientific exposition. The first two books enable us better than anything else in ancient literature to appreciate the boldness and, on the whole, the reasonableness of the ancient mind in forming hypotheses on great matters that still occupy the investigations of physical science. The third and fourth books give evidence of acuteness in psychological analysis; the fourth and sixth of the most active and varied observation of natural phenomena; the fifth of original insight and strong common sense in conceiving the origin of society and the progressive advance of man to civilization. But the chief value of Lucretius as a thinker lies in his firm grasp of speculative ideas, and in his application of them to the interpretation of human life and nature. All phenomena, moral as well as material, are contemplated by him in their relation to one great organic whole, which he acknowledges under the name of “Natura daedala rerum,” and the most beneficent manifestations of which he seems to symbolize and almost to deify in the “Alma Venus,” whom, in apparent contradiction to his denial of a divine interference with human affairs, he invokes with prayer in the opening lines of the poem. In this conception of nature are united the conceptions of law and order, of ever-changing life and interdependence, of immensity, individuality, and all-pervading subtlety, under which the universe is apprehended both by his intelligence and his imagination.

Nothing can be more unlike the religious and moral attitude of Lucretius than the old popular conception of him as an atheist and a preacher of the doctrine of pleasure. It is true that he denies the doctrines of a supernatural government of the world and of a future life. But his arguments against the first are really only valid against the limited and unworthy conceptions of divine agency involved in the ancient religions; his denial of the second is prompted by his vital realization of all that is meant by the arbitrary infliction of eternal torment after death. His war with the popular beliefs of his time is waged, not in the interests of licence, but in vindication of the sanctity of human feeling. The cardinal line of the poem,

“Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum,”

is elicited from him as his protest against the sacrifice of Iphigenia by her father. But in his very denial of a cruel, limited and capricious agency of the gods, and in his imaginative recognition of an orderly, all-pervading, all-regulating power, we find at least a nearer approach to the higher conceptions of modern theism than in any of the other imaginative conceptions of ancient poetry and art. But his conception even of the ancient gods and of their indirect influence on human life is more worthy than the popular one. He conceives of them as living a life of eternal peace and exemption from passion, in a world of their own; and the highest ideal of man is, through the exercise of his reason, to realize an image of this life. Although they are conceived of as unconcerned with the interest of our world, yet influences are supposed to emanate from them which the human heart is capable of receiving and assimilating. The effect of unworthy conceptions of the divine nature is that they render a man incapable of visiting the temples of the gods in a calm spirit, or of receiving the emanations that “announce the divine peace” in peaceful tranquillity. The supposed “atheism” of Lucretius proceeds from a more deeply reverential spirit than that of the majority of professed believers in all times.

His moral attitude is also far removed from that of ordinary ancient Epicureanism or of modern materialism. Though he acknowledges pleasure to be the law of life, yet he is far from regarding its attainment as the end of life. What man needs is not enjoyment, but “peace and a pure heart.” The victory to be won by man is the triumph over fear, ambition, passion, luxury. With the conquest over these nature herself supplies all that is needed for happiness. Self-control and renunciation are the lessons which he preaches.

It has been doubted whether Cicero,1 in his short criticism in the letter already referred to, concedes to Lucretius both the gifts of genius and the accomplishment of art or only one of them. Readers of a later time, who could compare his work with the finished works of the Augustan age, would certainly disparage his art rather than his power. But with Cicero it was different. He greatly admired, or professed to admire, the genius of the early Roman poets, while he shows indifference to the poetical genius of his younger contemporaries. Yet he could not have been insensible to the immense superiority in rhythmical smoothness which the hexameter of Lucretius has over that of Ennius and Lucilius. And no reader of Lucretius can doubt that he attached the greatest importance to artistic execution, and that he took a great pleasure, not only in “the long roll of his hexameter,” but also in producing the effects of alliteration, assonance, &c., which are so marked a peculiarity in the style of Plautus and the earlier Roman poets. He allows his taste for these tricks of style to degenerate into mannerism. And this is the only drawback to the impression of absolute spontaneity which his style produces. He was unfortunate in living before the natural rudeness of Latin art had been successfully grappled with. His only important precursors in serious poetry were Ennius and Lucilius, and, though he derived from the first of these an impulse to shape the Latin tongue into a fitting vehicle for the expression of elevated emotion and imaginative conception, he could find in neither a guide to follow in the task he set before himself. The difficulty and novelty of his task enhances our sense of his power. His finest passages are thus characterized by a freshness of feeling and enthusiasm of discovery. But the result of these conditions and of his own inadequate conception of the proper limits of his art is that his best poetry is clogged with a great mass of alien matter, which no treatment in the world could have made poetically endurable.

(W. Y. S.)

Authorities.—The two most ancient manuscripts of Lucretius, O and Q, are both at Leiden, one being a folio (oblongus) and the other a quarto (quadratus). Upon these alone the modern texts are founded. The scientific editing of the text began with C. C. Lachmann (1852) whose work still holds the field. The most important commentary is that of H. A. J. Munro (4th ed., 1886) with a prose translation. For the earlier editions it is sufficient to refer to the account in Munro’s Introduction, vol. i. pp. 3 sqq. Giussani’s complete edition (with Italian notes, 1896) and R. Heinze’s edition of book iii. (1897) are also of value. So too are A. Brieger’s numerous contributions in German periodicals and his text in the Teubner series (2nd ed., 1899).

The philosophy of Lucretius has been much studied in recent times. Amongst special treatises may be mentioned K. H. Usener’s Epicurea (1887); J. Woltjer’s Lucretii philosophia cum fontibus comparata (1877); John Masson’s Atomic Theory of Lucretius (1884) and Lucretius: Epicurean and Poet (1909); and several papers and treatises by Brieger and Giussani.

On the characteristics of the poet as a whole, C. Martha’s Le Poème de Lucrèce (4th ed., Paris, 1885) and W. Y. Sellar in chaps. xi. sqq. of the Roman Poets of the Republic, may be consulted. There are useful bibliographies in W. S. Teuffel’s History of Roman Literature (English trans. by G. C. W. Warr) and Martin v. Schanz’s Geschichte der römischen Litteratur.

The following translations into English verse are known: T. Creech (1683), J. M. Good (1805), T. Busby (1813), C. F. Johnson (New York, 1872), T. C. Baring (1884). There is also a translation by Cyril Bailey (Oxford, 1910).

1 Ad Q. Fratr. ii. 9 (11), 13. Both sense and words have been much disputed. The general sense is probably that given by the following restoration, “Lucretii poemata, ut scribis, ita sunt multis hominibus ingenii multae etiam (MSS. tamen) artis, sed cum ad umbilicum (omitted in MSS.) veneris, virum te putabo, si Sallustii Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo.” This would concede Lucretius both genius and art, but imply at the same time that he was not easy reading.

LUCRINUS LACUS, or Lucrine Lake, a lake of Campania, Italy, about ½ m. to the N. of Lake Avernus, and only separated from the sea (Gulf of Pozzuoli) by a narrow strip of land, traversed by the coast road, Via Herculanea, which runs on an embankment, the construction of which was traditionally attributed to Heracles in Strabo’s time—and the modern railway. Its size has been much reduced by the rise of the crater of the Montenuovo in 1538. Its greatest depth is about 15 ft. In Roman days its fisheries were important and were let out by the state to contractors. Its oyster-beds were, as at the present day, renowned; their foundation is attributed to one Sergius Orata, about 100 B.C. It was also in favour as a resort for pleasure excursions from Baiae (cf. Martial i. 63), and its banks were covered with villas, of which the best known was Cicero’s Academia, on the E. bank. The remnants of this villa, with the village of Tripergola, disappeared in 1538.

See J. Beloch, Campanien, ed. 2 (Breslau, 1890), 172.

LUCULLUS, the name of a Roman plebeian family of the Licinian gens. By far the most famous of its members was Lucius Licinius Lucullus (c. 110-56), surnamed Ponticus from his victories in Asia Minor over Mithradates VI. of Pontus. His father, of the same name, had held an important military command in Sicily, but on his return to Rome he was prosecuted on a charge of bribery and condemned to exile. His mother was Caecilia, of the family of the Metelli, and sister of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus. Early in life he attached himself to the party of Sulla, and to that party he remained constant. He attracted Sulla’s notice in the Social War (90) and in 88, when Sulla was appointed to the command of the war against Mithradates, accompanied him as quaestor to Greece and Asia Minor. While Sulla was besieging Athens, Lucullus raised a fleet and drove Mithradates out of the Mediterranean. He won a brilliant victory off Tenedos, and had he been more of a patriot and less of a party man he might have ended a perilous war. In 84 peace was concluded with Mithradates. Sulla returned to Rome, while Lucullus remained in Asia, and by wise and generous financial reforms laid the foundation of the prosperity of the province. The result of his policy was that he became extremely popular with the provincials, but offended many of the publicani, a powerful class which farmed the public revenue. In 80 he returned to Rome as curule aedile, in which capacity he exhibited games of exceptional magnificence. Soon afterwards (77) he was elected praetor, and was next appointed to the province of Africa, where he again won a good name as a just and considerate governor. In 74 he became consul, and went to Asia at the head of about 30,000 foot and 2000 horse, to defend the province of Bithynia against Mithradates, who was besieging his colleague, Marcus Aurelius Cotta, in Chalcedon on the Propontis. Mithradates was forced to retire along the sea-coast till he halted before the strong city of Cyzicus, which he besieged. Lucullus, however, cut off his communications on the land side, and, aided by bad weather, forced him to raise the siege. In the autumn of 73 Lucullus marched to Cabeira or Neocaesarea, where the king had gone into winter quarters with a vague hope that his son-in-law, Tigranes, king of Armenia, and possibly even the Parthians, might come to his aid. Although the forces of Mithradates were far superior in numbers, his troops were no match for the Roman legionaries. A large detachment of his army having been cut up by one of Lucullus’s lieutenant-generals, the king decided on instant retreat. The retreat soon became a disorderly flight, Mithradates himself escaping with difficulty into Lesser Armenia.

Thus Pontus, with the exception of some of the maritime cities, such as Sinope, Heraclea and Amisus, became Roman territory. Two years were occupied in the capture of these strongholds, while Lucullus busied himself with a general reform of the administration of the province of Asia. His next step was to demand the surrender of Mithradates and to threaten Tigranes with war in the event of refusal. In the spring of 69, at the head of only two legions, he marched through Sophene, the south-western portion of Armenia, crossed the Tigris, and pushed on to the newly-built royal city, Tigranocerta, situated on one of the affluents of that river. A motley host, made up out of the tribes bordering on the Black Sea and the Caspian, hovered round his small army, but failed to hinder him from laying siege to the town. Lucullus showed consummate military capacity, contriving to maintain the siege and at the same time to give battle to the enemy’s vastly superior forces. There might now have been peace but for the interference of Mithradates, who pressed Tigranes to renew the war and to seek the aid and alliance of Parthia. The Parthian king, however, preferred a treaty with Rome to a treaty with Armenia, and desired simply to have the Euphrates recognized as his western boundary. Mithradates next appealed to the national spirit of the peoples of the East generally, and endeavoured to rouse them to a united effort. The position of Lucullus was critical. The home government was for recalling him, and his army was disaffected. Nevertheless, though continually harassed by the enemy, he persisted in marching northwards from Tigranocerta over the high table-land of central Armenia, in the hope of reaching Artaxata on the Araxes. But the open mutiny of his troops compelled him to recross the Tigris into the Mesopotamian valley. Here, on a dark tempestuous night, he surprised and stormed Nisibis, the capital of the Armenian district of Mesopotamia, and in this city, which yielded him a rich booty, he found satisfactory winter quarters. Meantime Mithradates was again in Pontus, and in a disastrous engagement at Ziela the Roman camp was taken and the army slaughtered to a man. Lucullus was obliged to retreat into Asia Minor, leaving Tigranes and Mithradates masters of Pontus and Cappadocia. The work of eight years of war was undone. In 66 Lucullus was superseded by Pompey. He had fairly earned the honour of a triumph, but his powerful enemies at Rome and charges of maladministration, to which his immense wealth gave colour, caused it to be deferred till 63. From this time, with the exception of occasional public appearances, he gave himself up to elegant luxury, with which he combined a sort of dilettante pursuit of philosophy, literature and art. As a general he does not seem to have possessed the entire confidence of his troops, owing probably to his natural hauteur and the strict discipline which he imposed on them. The same causes made him unpopular with the Roman capitalists, whose sole object was the accumulation of enormous fortunes by farming the revenue of the provinces.

Among the Roman nobles who revelled in the newly acquired riches of the East, Lucullus stood pre-eminent. His park and pleasure grounds near Rome, and the costly and laborious works in his parks and villas at Tusculum, near Naples, earned for him from Pompey (it is said) the title of the “Roman Xerxes.” On one of his luxurious entertainments he is said to have spent upwards of £2000. He was a liberal patron of Greek philosophers and men of letters, and he collected a valuable library, to which such men had free access. He himself is said to have been a student of Greek literature, and to have written a history of the Marsian war in Greek, inserting solecisms to show that he was a Roman. He was one of the interlocutors in Cicero’s Academica, the second book (first edition) of which was called Lucullus. Sulla also entrusted him with the revision of his Memoirs. The introduction of the cherry-tree from Asia into Europe is attributed to him. It appears that he became mentally feeble some years before his death, and was obliged to surrender the management of his affairs to his brother Marcus. The usual funeral panegyric was pronounced on him in the Forum, and the people would have had him buried by the side of Sulla in the Campus Martius, but at his brother’s request he was laid in his splendid villa at Tusculum.

See Plutarch’s Lucullus; Appian’s Mithridatic War; the epitomes of the lost books of Livy; and many passages in Cicero. Some allusions will also be found in Dio Cassius, Pliny and Athenaeus. For the Mithradatic wars, see bibliography under Mithradates (VI. of Pontus); and generally G. Boissier, Cicero and his Friends (Eng: trans. by A. D. Jones, 1897); H. Peter, Hist. Rom. Reliquiae, i. p. cclxxxv.; W. Drumann, Geschichte Roms, iv. His Elogium is given in C.I.L. i. 292.

His brother, Marcus Licinius Lucullus, was adopted by Marcus Terentius Varro, and was hence known as Marcus Terentius Varro Lucullus. In 82 B.C. he served under Sulla against Marius. In 79 he was curule aedile with his brother, in 77 praetor, in 73 consul with Gaius Cassius Varus. When praetor he forbade the carrying of arms by slaves, and with his colleague in the consulship passed the lex Terentia Cassia, to give authority for purchasing corn with the public money and retailing it at a fixed price at Rome. As proconsul in Macedonia he made war with great cruelty against the Dardani and Bessi, and compelled them to acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. Having enjoyed a triumph, he was sent out to the East to settle the affairs of the provinces conquered by his brother. He sided with Cicero during the Catilinarian conspiracy, did his utmost to prevent his banishment, and subsequently supported his claim for the restoration of his house. He was one of the better representatives of the optimates, and enjoyed some reputation as an orator.

See Cicero, De Domo, 52; Pro Tullio, 8; In Verrem, iii. 70, v. 21; Florus, iii. 4, 7; Ammianus Marcellinus xxvii. 4, 11; Plutarch, Sulla, 27; Lucullus, 35, 36, 43; Orelli’s Onomasticon Tullianum.

LUCUS FERONIAE, an ancient shrine in Etruria. It was visited both by Latins and Sabines even in the time of Tullus Hostilius and was plundered by Hannibal in 211 B.C. It was undoubtedly in the territory of Capena (q.v.); but in imperial times it became an independent community receiving a colony of Octavian’s veterans (Colonia Iulia felix Lucoferensis) and possessing an amphitheatre. Its site has been disputed. Some authorities place it on the Colle Civitucola (but see Capena), others at the church of S. Abbondio near Rignano, others (and probably rightly) at Nazzano, which was reached by a branch road from the Via Flaminia, where remains of a circular temple have been found.

See E. Bormann in Corp. Inscr. Lat. xi. 569 sqq.; H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, ii. 369 sqq.

(T. As.)

LUCY, RICHARD DE (d. 1179), called the “loyal,” chief justiciar of England, appears in the latter part of Stephen’s reign as sheriff and justiciar of the county of Essex. He became, on the accession of Henry II., chief justiciar conjointly with Robert de Beaumont, earl of Leicester; and after the death of the latter (1168) held the office without a colleague for twelve years. The chief servant and intimate of the king he was among the first of the royal party to incur excommunication in the Becket controversy. In 1173 he played an important part in suppressing the rebellion of the English barons, and commanded the royalists at the battle of Fornham. He resigned the justiciarship in 1179, though pressed by the king to continue in office, and retired to Lesues Abbey in Kent, which he had founded and where he died. Lucy’s son, Godfrey de Lucy (d. 1204), was bishop of Winchester from 1189 to his death in September 1204; he took a prominent part in public affairs during the reigns of Henry II., Richard I. and John.

See J. H. Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville (1892); Sir J. H. Ramsay, Angevin Empire (1903); and W. Stubbs, Constitutional History, vol. i.

LUCY, SIR THOMAS (1532-1600), the English Warwickshire squire who is traditionally associated with the youth of William Shakespeare, was born on the 24th of April 1532, the son of William Lucy, and was descended, according to Dugdale, from Thurstane de Cherlecote, whose son Walter received the village of Charlecote from Henry de Montfort about 1190. Walter is said to have married into the Anglo-Norman family of Lucy, and his son adopted the mother’s surname. Three of Sir Thomas Lucy’s ancestors had been sheriffs of Warwickshire and Leicestershire, and on his father’s death in 1552 he inherited Sherborne and Hampton Lucy in addition to Charlecote, which was rebuilt for him by John of Padua, known as John Thorpe, about 1558. By his marriage with Joyce Acton he inherited Sutton Park in Worcestershire, and became in 1586 high sheriff of the county. He was knighted in 1565. He is said to have been under the tutorship of John Foxe, who is supposed to have imbued his pupil with the Puritan principles which he displayed as knight of the shire for Warwick in the parliament of 1571 and as sheriff of the county, but as Mrs Carmichael Stopes points out Foxe only left Oxford in 1545, and in 1547 went up to London, so that the connexion must have been short. He often appeared at Stratford-on-Avon as justice of the peace and as commissioner of musters for the county. As justice of the peace he showed great zeal against the Catholics, and took his share in the arrest of Edward Arden in 1583. In 1585 he introduced into parliament a bill for the better preservation of game and grain, and his reputation as a preserver of game gives some colour to the Shakespearian tradition connected with his name. Nicholas Rowe, writing in 1710, told a story that Lucy prosecuted Shakespeare for deer-stealing from Charlecote Park in 1585, and that Shakespeare aggravated the offence by writing a ballad on his prosecutor. The trouble arising from this incident is said to have driven Shakespeare from Stratford to London. The tale was corroborated by Archdeacon Davies of Sapperton, Gloucestershire, who died in 1708. The story is not necessarily falsified by the fact that there was no deer park at Charlecote at the time, since there was a warren, and the term warren legally covers a preserve for other animals than hares or rabbits, roe-deer among others. Shakespeare is generally supposed to have caricatured the local magnate of Stratford in his portrait of Justice Shallow, who made his first appearance in the second part of Henry IV., and a second in the Merry Wives of Windsor. Robert Shallow is a justice of the peace in the county of Gloucester and his ancestors have the dozen white luces in their coats, the arms of the Lucys being three luces, while in Dugdale’s Warwickshire (ed. 1656) there is drawn a coat-of-arms in which these are repeated in each of the four quarters, making twelve in all. There are many considerations which make it unlikely that Shallow represents Lucy, the chief being the noteworthy difference in their circumstances. Lucy died at Charlecote on the 7th of July 1600. His grandson, Sir Thomas Lucy (1585-1640), was a friend of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and was eulogized by John Davies of Hereford in 1610. The Charlecote estates eventually passed to the Rev. John Hammond through his marriage with Alice Lucy, and in 1789 he adopted the name of Lucy.

For a detailed account of Sir Thomas Lucy, with his son and grandson of the same name, see Mrs C. Carmichael Stopes, Shakespeare’s Warwickshire Contemporaries (2nd ed., 1907). Cf. also an article by Mrs Stopes in the Fortnightly Review (Feb. 1903), entitled “Sir Thomas Lucy not the Original of Justice Shallow,” and J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Observations on the Charlecote Traditions (Brighton, 1887).

LUDDITES, the name given to organized bands of English rioters for the destruction of machinery, who made their first appearance in Nottingham and the neighbouring districts towards the end of 1811. The origin of the name is given in Pellew’s Life of Lord Sidmouth (iii. 80). In 1779 there lived in a village in Leicestershire a person of weak intellect, called Ned Ludd, who was the butt of the boys of the village. On one occasion Ludd pursued one of his tormentors into a house where were two of the frames used in stocking manufacture, and, not being able to catch the boy, vented his anger on the frames. Afterwards, whenever any frames were broken, it became a common saying that Ludd had done it. The riots arose out of the severe distress caused by the war with France. The leader of the riotous bands took the name of “General Ludd.” The riots were specially directed against machinery because of the widespread prejudice that its use produced a scarcity in the demand for labour. Apart from this prejudice, it was inevitable that the economic and social revolution implied in the change from manual labour to work by machinery should give rise to great misery. The riots began with the destruction of stocking and lace frames, and, continuing through the winter and the following spring, spread into Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire. They were met by severe repressive legislation, introduced by Lord Liverpool’s government, a notable feature in the opposition to which was Lord Byron’s speech in the House of Lords. In 1816 the rioting was resumed, caused by the depression which followed the peace of 1815 and aggravated by one of the worst of recorded harvests. In that year, although the centre of the rioting was again in Nottingham, it extended over almost the whole kingdom. The rioters were also thoroughly organized. While part of the band destroyed the machinery, sentinels were posted to give warning of the approach of the military. Vigorous repressive measures, and, especially, reviving prosperity, brought the movement to an end.

See G. Pellew, Life and Correspondence of H. Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth (London, 1847); Spencer Walpole, History of England, vol. i. (London, 1890); and the Annual Register for 1811, 1812 and 1816.

LÜDENSCHEID, a town in the Prussian province of Westphalia, 19 m. by rail S.S.E. of Hagen. Pop. (1905) 28,921. It is the seat of various hardware manufactures, among them metal-plated and tin-plated goods, buckles, fancy nails and brooches, and has iron-foundries and machine shops. From the counts of Altena Lüdenscheid passed to the counts of the Mark, with which district it was ceded to Brandenburg early in the 17th century.

LUDHIANA, a town and district of British India, in the Jullundur division of the Punjab. The town is 8 m. from the present left bank of the Sutlej, 228 m. by rail N.W. of Delhi. Pop. (1901) 48,649. It is an important centre of trade in grain, and has manufactures of shawls, &c., by Kashmiri weavers, and of scarves, turbans, furniture and carriages. There is an American Presbyterian mission, which maintains a medical school for Christian women, founded in 1894.

The District of Ludhiana lies south of the river Sutlej, and north of the native states of Patiala, Jind, Nabha and Maler Kotla. Area 1455 sq. m. The district consists for the most part of a broad plain, without hills or rivers, stretching northward from the native borders to the ancient bed of the Sutlej. The soil is a rich clay, broken by large patches of shifting sand. On the eastern edge, towards Umballa, the clay is covered by a bed of rich mould, suitable for the cultivation of cotton and sugar-cane. Towards the west the sand occurs in union with the superficial clay, and forms a light friable soil, on which cereals form the most profitable crop. Even here, however, the earth is so retentive of moisture that good harvests are reaped from fields which appear mere stretches of dry and sandy waste. These southern uplands descend to the valley of the Sutlej by an abrupt terrace, which marks the former bed of the river. The principal stream has shifted to the opposite side of the valley, leaving an alluvial strip, 10 m. in width, between its ancient and its modern bed. The Sutlej itself is here only navigable for boats of small burden. A branch of the Sirhind canal irrigates a large part of the western area. The population in 1901 was 673,097. The principal crops are wheat, millets, pulse, maize and sugar-cane. The district is crossed by the main line of the North-Western railway from Delhi to Lahore, with two branches.

During the Mussulman epoch, the history of the district is bound up with that of the Rais of Raikot, a family of converted Rajputs, who received the country as a fief under the Sayyid dynasty, about 1445. The town of Ludhiana was founded in 1480 by two of the Lodi race (then ruling at Delhi), from whom it derives its name, and was built in great part from the prehistoric bricks of Sunet. The Lodis continued in possession until 1620, when it again fell into the hands of the Rais of Raikot. Throughout the palmy days of the Mogul empire the Raikot family held sway, but the Sikhs took advantage of the troubled period which accompanied the Mogul decadence to establish their supremacy south of the Sutlej. Several of their chieftains made encroachments on the domains of the Rais, who were only able to hold their own by the aid of George Thomas, the famous adventurer of Hariana. In 1806 Ranjit Singh crossed the Sutlej and reduced the obstinate Mahommedan family, and distributed their territory amongst his co-religionists. Since the British occupation of the Punjab, Ludhiana has grown in wealth and population.

See Ludhiana District Gazetteer (Lahore, 1907).

LUDINGTON, a city and the county-seat of Mason county, Michigan, U.S.A., on Lake Michigan, at the mouth of the Marquette river, about 85 m. N.W. of Grand Rapids. Pop. (1900) 7166 (2259 foreign-born); (1904, state census) 7259; (1910) 9132. It is served by the Père Marquette, and the Ludington and Northern railways, and by steamboat lines to Chicago, Milwaukee and other lake ports. To Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Kewanee and Two Rivers, Wisconsin, on the W. shore of Lake Michigan, cars, especially those of the Père Marquette railway, are ferried from here. Ludington was formerly well known as a lumber centre, but this industry has greatly declined. There are various manufactures, and the city has a large grain trade. On the site of the city Père Marquette died and was buried, but his body was removed within a year to Point St Ignace. Ludington was settled about 1859, and was chartered as a city in 1873. It was originally named Père Marquette, but was renamed in 1871 in honour of James Ludington, a local lumberman.

LUDLOW, EDMUND (c. 1617-1692), English parliamentarian, son of Sir Henry Ludlow of Maiden Bradley, Wiltshire, whose family had been established in that county since the 15th century, was born in 1617 or 1618. He went to Trinity College, Oxford, and was admitted to the Inner Temple in 1638. When the Great Rebellion broke out, he engaged as a volunteer in the life guard of Lord Essex. His first essay in arms was at Worcester, his next at Edgehill. He was made governor of Wardour Castle in 1643, but had to surrender after a tenacious defence on the 18th of March 1644. On being exchanged soon afterwards, he engaged as major of Sir A. Hesilrige’s regiment of horse. He was present at the second battle of Newbury, October 1644, at the siege of Basing House in November, and took part in an expedition to relieve Taunton in December. In January his regiment was surprised by Sir M. Langdale, Ludlow himself escaping with difficulty. In 1646 he was elected M.P. for Wilts in the room of his father and attached himself to the republican party. He opposed the negotiations with the king, and was one of the chief promoters of Pride’s Purge in 1648. He was one of the king’s judges, and signed the warrant for his execution. In February he was elected a member of the council of state. In January 1651 Ludlow was sent into Ireland as lieutenant-general of horse, holding also a civil commission. Here he spared neither health nor money in the public service. Ireton, the deputy of Ireland, died on the 26th of November 1651; Ludlow then held the chief command, and had practically completed the conquest of the island when he resigned his authority to Fleetwood in October 1652. Though disapproving Cromwell’s action in dissolving the Long Parliament, he maintained his employment, but when Cromwell was declared Protector he declined to acknowledge his authority. On returning to England in October 1655 he was arrested, and on refusing to submit to the government was allowed to retire to Essex. After Oliver Cromwell’s death Ludlow was returned for Hindon in Richard’s parliament of 1659, but opposed the continuance of the protectorate. He sat in the restored Rump, and was a member of its council of state and of the committee of safety after its second expulsion, and a commissioner for the nomination of officers in the army. In July he was sent to Ireland as commander-in-chief. Returning in October 1659, he endeavoured to support the failing republican cause by reconciling the army to the parliament. In December he returned hastily to Ireland to suppress a movement in favour of the Long Parliament, but on arrival found himself almost without supporters. He came back to England in January 1660, and was met by an impeachment presented against him to the restored parliament. His influence and authority had now disappeared, and all chance of regaining them vanished with Lambert’s failure. He took his seat in the Convention parliament as member for Hindon, but his election was annulled on the 18th of May. Ludlow was not excepted from the Act of Indemnity, but was included among the fifty-two for whom punishment less than capital was reserved. Accordingly, on the proclamation of the king ordering the regicides to come in, Ludlow emerged from his concealment, and on the 20th of June surrendered to the Speaker; but finding that his life was not assured, he succeeded in escaping to Dieppe, travelled to Geneva and Lausanne, and thence to Vevey, then under the protection of the canton of Bern. There he remained, and in spite of plots to assassinate him he was unmolested by the government of that canton, which had also extended its protection to other regicides. He steadily refused during thirty years of exile to have anything to do with the desperate enterprises of republican plotters. But in 1689 he returned to England, hoping to be employed in Irish affairs. He was however remembered only as a regicide, and an address from the House of Commons was presented to William III. by Sir Edward Seymour, requesting the king to issue a proclamation for his arrest. Ludlow escaped again, and returned to Vevey, where he died in 1692. A monument raised to his memory by his widow is in the church of St Martin. Over the door of the house in which he lived was placed the inscription “Omne solum forti patria, quia Patris.” Ludlow married Elizabeth, daughter of William Thomas, of Wenvoe, Glamorganshire, but left no issue.

His Memoirs, extending to the year 1672, were published in 1698-1699 at Vevey and have been often reprinted; a new edition, with notes and illustrative material and introductory memoir, was issued by C. H. Firth in 1894. They are strongly partisan, but the picture of the times is lifelike and realistic. Ludlow also published “a letter from Sir Hardress Waller ... to Lieutenant-General Ludlow with his answer” (1660), in defence of his conduct in Ireland. See C. H. Firth’s article in Dict. Nat. Biog.; Guizot’s Monk’s Contemporaries; A. Stein’s Briefe Englischer Flüchtlinge in der Schweiz.

LUDLOW, a market town and municipal borough in the Ludlow parliamentary division of Shropshire, England, on the Hereford-Shrewsbury joint line of the Great Western and London & North Western railways, 162 m. W.N.W. from London. Pop. (1901) 4552. It is beautifully situated at the junction of the rivers Teme and Corve, upon and about a wooded eminence crowned by a massive ruined castle. Parts of this castle date from the 11th century, but there are many additions such as the late Norman circular chapel, the Decorated state rooms, and details in Perpendicular and Tudor styles. The parish church of St Lawrence is a cruciform Perpendicular building, with a lofty central tower, and a noteworthy east window, its 15th-century glass showing the martyrdom of St Lawrence. There are many fine half-timbered houses of the 17th century, and one of seven old town-gates remains. The grammar school, founded in the reign of John, was incorporated by Edward I. The principal public buildings are the guildhall, town-hall and market-house, and public rooms, which include a museum of natural history. Tanning and flour-milling are carried on. The town is governed by a mayor, 4 aldermen and 12 councillors. Area 416 acres.

The country neighbouring Ludlow is richly wooded and hilly, while the scenery of the Teme is exquisite. Westward, Vinnal Hill reaches 1235 ft., eastward lies Titterstone Clee (1749 ft.). Richard’s Castle, 3 m. S. on the borders of Herefordshire, dates from the reign of Edward the Confessor, but little more than its great artificial mound remains. At Bromfield, 3 m. above Ludlow on the Teme, the church and some remains of domestic buildings belonged to a Benedictine monastery of the 12th century.