VOLUME XVI SLICE I L to Lamellibranchia (continued 3)

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

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

LOTHAIR (941-986), king of France, son of Louis IV., succeeded his father in 954, and was at first under the guardianship of Hugh the Great, duke of the Franks, and then under that of his maternal uncle Bruno, archbishop of Cologne. The beginning of his reign was occupied with wars against the vassals, particularly against the duke of Normandy. Lothair then seems to have conceived the design of recovering Lorraine. He attempted to precipitate matters by a sudden attack, and in the spring of 978 nearly captured the emperor Otto II. at Aix-la-Chapelle. Otto took his revenge in the autumn by invading France. He penetrated as far as Paris, devastating the country through which he passed, but failed to take the town, and was forced to retreat with heavy loss. Peace was concluded in 980 at Margut-sur-Chiers, and in 983 Lothair was even chosen guardian to the young Otto III. Towards 980, however, Lothair quarrelled with Hugh the Great’s son, Hugh Capet, who, at the instigation of Adalberon, archbishop of Reims, became reconciled with Otto III. Lothair died on the 2nd of March 986. By his wife Emma, daughter of Lothair, king of Italy, he left a son who succeeded him as Louis V.

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

LOTHAIR (825-869), king of the district called after him Lotharingia, or Lorraine, was the second son of the emperor Lothair I. On his father’s death in 855, he received for his kingdom a district lying west of the Rhine, between the North Sea and the Jura mountains, which was called Regnum Lotharii and early in the 10th century became known as Lotharingia or Lorraine. On the death of his brother Charles in 863 he added some lands south of the Jura to this inheritance, but, except for a few feeble expeditions against the Danish pirates, he seems to have done little for its government or its defence. The reign was chiefly occupied by efforts on the part of Lothair to obtain a divorce from his wife Teutberga, a sister of Hucbert, abbot of St Maurice (d. 864); and his relations with his uncles, Charles the Bald and Louis the German, were influenced by his desire to obtain their support to this plan. Although quarrels and reconciliations between the three kings followed each other in quick succession, in general it may be said that Louis favoured the divorce, and Charles opposed it, while neither lost sight of the fact that Lothair was without male issue. Lothair, whose desire for the divorce was prompted by his affection for a certain Waldrada, put away Teutberga; but Hucbert took up arms on her behalf, and after she had submitted successfully to the ordeal of water, Lothair was compelled to restore her in 858. Still pursuing his purpose, he won the support of his brother, the emperor Louis II., by a cession of lands, and obtained the consent of the local clergy to the divorce and to his marriage with Waldrada, which was celebrated in 862. A synod of Frankish bishops met at Metz in 863 and confirmed this decision, but Teutberga fled to the court of Charles the Bald, and Pope Nicholas I. declared against the decision of the synod. An attack on Rome by the emperor was without result, and in 865 Lothair, convinced that Louis and Charles at their recent meeting had discussed the partition of his kingdom, and threatened with excommunication, again took back his wife. Teutberga, however, either from inclination or compulsion, now expressed her desire for a divorce, and Lothair went to Italy to obtain the assent of the new pope Adrian II. Placing a favourable interpretation upon the words of the pope, he had set out on the return journey, when he was seized with fever and died at Piacenza on the 8th of August 869. He left, by Waldrada, a son Hugo who was declared illegitimate, and his kingdom was divided between Charles the Bald and Louis the German.

See Hincmar, “Opusculum de divortio Lotharii regis et Tetbergae reginae,” in Cursus completus patrologiae, tome cxxv., edited by J. P. Migne (Paris, 1857-1879); M. Sdralek, Hinkmars von Rheims Kanonistisches Gutachten über die Ehescheidung des Königs Lothar II. (Freiburg, 1881); E. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches (Leipzig, 1887-1888); and E. Mühlbacher, Die Regenten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern (Innsbruck, 1881).

LOTHIAN, EARLS AND MARQUESSES OF. Mark Kerr, 1st earl of Lothian (d. 1609), was the eldest son of Mark Kerr (d. 1584), abbot, and then commendator, of Newbattle, or Newbottle, and was a member of the famous border family of Ker of Cessford. The earls and dukes of Roxburghe, who are also descended from the Kers of Cessford, have adopted the spelling Ker, while the earls and marquesses of Lothian have taken the form Kerr. Like his father, the abbot of Newbattle, Mark Kerr was an extraordinary lord of session under the Scottish king James VI.; he became Lord Newbattle in 1587 and was created earl of Lothian in 1606. He was master of inquests from 1577 to 1606, and he died on the 8th of April 1609, having had, as report says, thirty-one children by his wife, Margaret (d. 1617), daughter of John Maxwell, 4th Lord Herries. His son Robert, the 2nd earl, died without sons in July 1624. He had, in 1621, obtained a charter from the king enabling his daughter Anne to succeed to his estates provided that she married a member of the family of Ker. Consequently in 1631 she married William Ker, son of Robert, 1st earl of Ancrum (1578-1654), a member of the family of Ker of Ferniehurst, whose father, William Ker, had been killed in 1590 by Robert Ker, afterwards 1st earl of Roxburghe. Robert was in attendance upon Charles I. both before and after he came to the throne, and was created earl of Ancrum in 1633. He was a writer and a man of culture, and among his friends were the poet Donne and Drummond of Hawthornden. His elder son William was created earl of Lothian in 1631, the year of his marriage with Anne Kerr, and Sir William Kerr of Blackhope, a brother of the 2nd earl, who had taken the title of earl of Lothian in 1624, was forbidden to use it (see Correspondence of Sir Robert Ker, earl of Ancrum, and his son William, third earl of Lothian, 1875).

William Ker (c. 1605-1675), who thus became 3rd earl of Lothian, signed the Scottish national covenant in 1638 and marched with the Scots into England in 1640, being present when the English were routed at Newburn, after which he became governor of Newcastle-on-Tyne. During the Civil War he was prominent rather as a politician than as a soldier; he became a Scottish secretary of state in 1649, and was one of the commissioners who visited Charles II. at Breda in 1650. He died at Newbattle Abbey, near Edinburgh, in October 1675. William’s eldest son Robert, the 4th earl (1636-1703), supported the Revolution of 1688 and served William III. in several capacities; he became 3rd earl of Ancrum on the death of his uncle Charles in 1690, and was created marquess of Lothian in 1701. His eldest son William, the 2nd marquess (c. 1662-1722), who had been a Scottish peer as Lord Jedburgh since 1692, was a supporter of the union with England. His son William, the 3rd marquess (c. 1690-1767), was the father of William Henry, the 4th marquess, who was wounded at Fontenoy and was present at Culloden. He was a member of parliament for some years and had reached the rank of general in the army when he died at Bath on the 12th of April 1775. His grandson William, the 6th marquess (1763-1824), married Henrietta (1762-1805), daughter and heiress of John Hobart, 2nd earl of Buckinghamshire, thus bringing Blickling Hall and the Norfolk estates of the Hobarts into the Kerr family. In 1821 he was created a peer of the United Kingdom as Baron Ker and he died on the 27th of April 1824. In 1900 Robert Schomberg Kerr (b. 1874) succeeded his father, Schomberg Henry, the 9th marquess (1833-1900), as 10th marquess of Lothian.

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

In the time of Oswic the English element became predominant in northern Britain. His supremacy was acknowledged both by the Welsh in the western Lowlands and by the Scots in Argyllshire. On the death of the Pictish king Talorgan, the son of his brother Eanfrith, he seems to have obtained the sovereignty over a considerable part of that nation also. Early in Ecgfrith’s reign an attempt at revolt on the part of the Picts proved unsuccessful. We hear at this time also of the establishment of an English bishopric at Abercorn, which, however, only lasted for a few years. By the disastrous overthrow of Ecgfrith in 685 the Picts, Scots and some of the Britons also recovered their independence. Yet we find a succession of English bishops at Whithorn from 730 to the 9th century, from which it may be inferred that the south-west coast had already by this time become English. The Northumbrian dominions were again enlarged by Eadberht, who in 750 is said to have annexed Kyle, the central part of Ayrshire, with other districts. In conjunction with Œngus mac Fergus, king of the Picts, he also reduced the whole of the Britons to submission in 756. But this subjugation was not lasting, and the British kingdom, though now reduced to the basin of the Clyde, whence its inhabitants are known as Strathclyde Britons, continued to exist for nearly three centuries. After Eadberht’s time we hear little of events in the northern part of Northumbria, and there is some reason for suspecting that English influence in the south-west began to decline before long, as our list of bishops of Whithorn ceases early in the 9th century; the evidence on this point, however, is not so decisive as is commonly stated. About 844 an important revolution took place among the Picts. The throne was acquired by Kenneth mac Alpin, a prince of Scottish family, who soon became formidable to the Northumbrians. He is said to have invaded “Saxonia” six times, and to have burnt Dunbar and Melrose. After the disastrous battle at York in 867 the Northumbrians were weakened by the loss of the southern part of their territories, and between 883 and 889 the whole country as far as Lindisfarne was ravaged by the Scots. In 919, however, we find their leader Aldred calling in Constantine II., king of the Scots, to help them. A few years later together with Constantine and the Britons they acknowledged the supremacy of Edward the Elder. After his death, however, both the Scots and the Britons were for a time in alliance with the Norwegians from Ireland, and consequently Æthelstan is said to have ravaged a large portion of the Scottish king’s territories in 934. Brunanburh, where Æthelstan defeated the confederates in 937, is believed by many to have been in Dumfriesshire, but we have no information as to the effects of the battle on the northern populations. By this time, however, the influence of the Scottish kingdom certainly seems to have increased in the south, and in 945 the English king Edmund gave Cumberland, i.e. apparently the British kingdom of Strathclyde, to Malcolm I., king of the Scots, in consideration of his alliance with him. Malcolm’s successor Indulph (954-962) succeeded in capturing Edinburgh, which thenceforth remained in possession of the Scots. His successors made repeated attempts to extend their territory southwards, and certain late chroniclers state that Kenneth II. in 971-975 obtained a grant of the whole of Lothian from Edgar. Whatever truth this story may contain, the cession of the province was finally effected by Malcolm II. by force of arms. At his first attempt in 1006 he seems to have suffered a great defeat from Uhtred, the son of earl Waltheof. Twelve years later, however, he succeeded in conjunction with Eugenius, king of Strathclyde, in annihilating the Northumbrian army at Carham on the Tweed, and Eadulf Cudel, the brother and successor of Uhtred, ceded all his territory to the north of that river as the price of peace. Henceforth in spite of an invasion by Aldred, the son of Uhtred, during the reign of Duncan, Lothian remained permanently in possession of the Scottish kings. In the reign of Malcolm III. and his son, the English element appears to have acquired considerable influence in the kingdom. Some three years before he obtained his father’s throne Malcolm had by the help of earl Siward secured the government of Cumbria (Strathclyde) with which Lothian was probably united. Then in 1068 he received a large number of exiles from England, amongst them the Ætheling Eadgar, whose sister Margaret he married. Four other sons in succession occupied the throne, and in the time of the youngest, David, who held most of the south of Scotland as an earldom from 1107-1124 and the whole kingdom from 1124-1153, the court seems already to have been composed chiefly of English and Normans.

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

(F. G. M. B.)

LOTI, PIERRE [the pen-name of Louis Marie Julien Viaud] (1850- ), French author, was born at Rochefort on the 14th of January 1850. The Viauds are an old Protestant family, and Pierre Loti consistently adhered, at least nominally, to the faith of his fathers. Of the picturesque and touching incidents of his childhood he has given a very vivid account in Le Roman d’un enfant (1890). His education began in Rochefort, but at the age of seventeen, being destined for the navy, he entered the naval school, Le Borda, and gradually rose in his profession, attaining the rank of captain in 1906. In January 1910 he was placed on the reserve list. His pseudonym is said to be due to his extreme shyness and reserve in early life, which made his comrades call him after le Loti, an Indian flower which loves to blush unseen. He was never given to books or study (when he was received at the French Academy, he had the courage to say, “Loti ne sait pas lire”), and it was not until 1876 that he was persuaded to write down and publish some curious experiences at Constantinople, in Aziyadé, a book which, like so many of Loti’s, seems half a romance, half an autobiography. He proceeded to the South Seas, and on leaving Tahiti published the Polynesian idyll, originally called Rarahu (1880), which was reprinted as Le Mariage de Loti, and which first introduced to the wider public an author of remarkable originality and charm. Le Roman d’un spahi, a record of the melancholy adventures of a soldier in Senegambia, belongs to 1881. In 1882 Loti issued a collection of short studies under the general title of Fleurs d’ennui. In 1883 he achieved the widest celebrity, for not only did he publish Mon frère Yves, a novel describing the life of a French bluejacket in all parts of the world—perhaps his most characteristic production—but he was involved in a public discussion in a manner which did him great credit. While taking part as a naval officer in the Tongking War, Loti had exposed in the Figaro a series of scandals which followed on the capture of Hué (1883), and was suspended from the service for more than a year. He continued for some time nearly silent, but in 1886 he published a novel of life among the Breton fisher-folk, called Pêcheur d’islande, the most popular of all his writings. In 1887 he brought out a volume of extraordinary merit, which has not received the attention it deserves; this is Propos d’exil, a series of short studies of exotic places, in his peculiar semi-autobiographic style. The fantastic novel of Japanese manners, Madame Chrysanthème, belongs to the same year. Passing over one or two slighter productions, we come in 1890 to Au Maroc, the record of a journey to Fez in company with a French embassy. A collection of strangely confidential and sentimental reminiscences, called Le Livre de la pitié et de la mort, belongs to 1891. Loti was on board his ship at the port of Algiers when news was brought to him of his election, on the 21st of May 1891, to the French Academy. In 1892 he published Fantôme d’orient, another dreamy study of life in Constantinople, a sort of continuation of Aziyadé. He described a visit to the Holy Land, somewhat too copiously, in three volumes (1895-1896), and wrote a novel, Ramuntcho (1897), a story of manners in the Basque province, which is equal to his best writings. In 1900 he visited British India, with the view of describing what he saw; the result appeared in 1903—L’Inde (sans les Anglais). At his best Pierre Loti was unquestionably the finest descriptive writer of the day. In the delicate exactitude with which he reproduced the impression given to his own alert nerves by unfamiliar forms, colours, sounds and perfumes, he was without a rival. But he was not satisfied with this exterior charm; he desired to blend with it a moral sensibility of the extremest refinement, at once sensual and ethereal. Many of his best books are long sobs of remorseful memory, so personal, so intimate, that an English reader is amazed to find such depth of feeling compatible with the power of minutely and publicly recording what is felt. In spite of the beauty and melody and fragrance of Loti’s books his mannerisms are apt to pall upon the reader, and his later books of pure description were rather empty. His greatest successes were gained in the species of confession, half-way between fact and fiction, which he essayed in his earlier books. When all his limitations, however, have been rehearsed, Pierre Loti remains, in the mechanism of style and cadence, one of the most original and most perfect French writers of the second half of the 19th century. Among his later works were: La Troisième jeunesse de Mme Prune (1905); Les Désenchantées (1906, Eng. trans. by C. Bell); La Mort de Philae (1908); Judith Renaudin (Théâtre Antoine, 1904), a five-act historical play based on an earlier book; and, in collaboration with Émile Vedel, a translation of King Lear, also produced at the Théâtre Antoine in 1904.

(E. G.)

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

(W. A. B. C.)

LOTTERIES. The word lottery1 has no very definite signification. It may be applied to any process of determining prizes by lot, whether the object be amusement or gambling or public profit. In the Roman Saturnalia and in the banquets of aristocratic Romans the object was amusement; the guests received apophoreta. The same plan was followed on a magnificent scale by some of the emperors. Nero gave such prizes as a house or a slave. Heliogabalus introduced an element of absurdity—one ticket for a golden vase, another for six flies. This custom descended to the festivals given by the feudal and merchant princes of Europe, especially of Italy; and it formed a prominent feature of the splendid court hospitality of Louis XIV. In the Italian republics of the 16th century the lottery principle was applied to encourage the sale of merchandise. The lotto of Florence and the seminario of Genoa are well known, and Venice established a monopoly and drew a considerable revenue for the state. The first letters patent for a lottery in France were granted in 1539 by Francis I., and in 1656 the Italian, Lorenzo Tonti (the originator of “Tontines”) opened another for the building of a stone bridge between the Louvre and the Faubourg St Germain. The institution became very popular in France, and gradually assumed an important place in the government finance. The parlements frequently protested against it, but it had the support of Mazarin, and L. Phelypeaux, comte de Pontchartrain, by this means raised the expenses of the Spanish Succession War. Necker, in his Administration des finances, estimates the public charge for lotteries at 4,000,000 livres per annum. There were also lotteries for the benefit of religious communities and charitable purposes. Two of the largest were the Loteries de Piété and Des Enfans Trouvés. These and also the great Loterie de l’École militaire were practically merged in the Loterie Royale by the decree of 1776, suppressing all private lotteries in France. The financial basis of these larger lotteries was to take 5⁄24ths for expenses and benefit, and return 19⁄24ths to the public who subscribed. The calculation of chances had become a familiar science. It is explained in detail by Caminade de Castres in Enc. méth. finances, ii. s.v. “Loterie.” The names of the winning numbers in the first drawing were (1) extrait, (2) ambe, (3) terne, (4) quaterne, (5) quine. After this there were four drawings called primes gratuites. The extrait gave fifteen times the price of the ticket; the quine gave one million times the price. These are said to be much more favourable terms than were given in Vienna, Frankfort and other leading European cities at the end of the 18th century. The Loterie Royale was ultimately suppressed in 1836. Under the law of the 29th of May 1844 lotteries may be held for the assistance of charity and the fine arts. In 1878 twelve million lottery tickets of one franc each were sold in Paris to pay for prizes to exhibitors in the great Exhibition and expenses of working-men visitors. The first prize was worth £5000; the second, £4000, and the third and fourth £2000 each. The Société du Crédit Foncier, and many of the large towns, are permitted to contract loans, the periodical repayments of which are determined by lot. This practice, which is prohibited in Germany and England, resembles the older system of giving higher and lower rates of interest for money according to lot. Lotteries were suppressed in Belgium in 1830, Sweden in 1841 and Switzerland in 1865, but they still figure in the state budgets of Austria-Hungary, Prussia and other German States, Holland, Spain, Italy and Denmark. In addition to lottery loans, ordinary lotteries (occasion lotteries) are numerous in various countries of the continent of Europe. They are of various magnitude and are organized for a variety of purposes, such as charity, art, agriculture, church-building, &c. It is becoming the tendency, however, to discourage private and indiscriminate lotteries, and even state lotteries which contribute to the revenue. In Austria-Hungary and Germany, for instance, every year sees fewer places where tickets can be taken for them receive licenses. In 1904 a proposal for combining a working-class savings bank with a national lottery was seriously considered by the Prussian ministry. The scheme, which owes its conception to August Scherl, editor of the Berlin Lokalanzeiger, is an endeavour to utilize the love of gambling for the purpose of promoting thrift among the working-classes. It was proposed to make weekly collections from subscribers, in fixed amounts, ranging from sixpence to four shillings. The interest on the money deposited would not go to the depositors but would be set aside to form the prizes. Three hundred thousand tickets, divisible into halves, quarters and eighths, according to the sum deposited weekly, would form a series of 12,500 prizes, of a total value of £27,000. At the same time, the subscriber, while having his ordinary lottery chances of these prizes, still has to his credit intact the amount which he has subscribed week by week.

In England the earliest lotteries sanctioned by government were for such purposes as the repair of harbours in 1569, and the Virginia Company in 1612. In the lottery of 1569, 40,000 chances were sold at ten shillings each, the prizes being “plate, and certain sorts of merchandises.” In 1698 lotteries, with the exception of the Royal Oak lottery for the benefit of the Royal Fishing Company, were prohibited as common nuisances, by which children, servants and other unwary persons had been ruined. This prohibition was in the 18th century gradually extended to illegal insurances on marriages and other events, and to a great many games with dice, such as faro, basset, hazard, except backgammon and games played in the royal palace. In spite of these prohibitions, the government from 1709 down to 1824 annually raised considerable sums in lotteries authorized by act of parliament. The prizes were in the form of terminable or perpetual annuities. The £10 tickets were sold at a premium of say 40% to contractors who resold them in retail (sometimes in one-sixteenth parts) by “morocco men,” or men with red leather books who travelled through the country. As the drawing extended over forty days, a very pernicious system arose of insuring the fate of tickets during the drawing for a small premium of 4d. or 6d. This was partly cured by the Little Go Act of 1802, directed against the itinerant wheels which plied between the state lotteries, and partly by Perceval’s Act in 1806, which confined the drawing of each lottery to one day. From 1793 to 1824 the government made an average yearly profit of £346,765. Cope, one of the largest contractors, is said to have spent £36,000 in advertisements in a single year. The English lotteries were used to raise loans for general purposes, but latterly they were confined to particular objects, such as the improvement of London, the disposal of a museum, the purchase of a picture gallery, &c. Through the efforts of Lord Lyttleton and others a strong public opinion was formed against them, and in 1826 they were finally prohibited. An energetic proposal to revive the system was made before the select committee on metropolitan improvements in 1830, but it was not listened to. By a unique blunder in legislation, authority was given to hold a lottery under an act of 1831 which provided a scheme for the improvement of the city of Glasgow. These “Glasgow lotteries” were suppressed by an act of 1834. Art Unions were legalized by the Art Unions Act 1846. The last lottery prominently before the public in England was that of Dethier’s twelfth-cake lottery, which was suppressed on the 27th of December 1860. As defined at the beginning of this article, the word lottery has a meaning wide enough to include missing-word competitions, distributions by tradesmen of prize coupons, sweepstakes, &c. See Report of Joint Select Committee on Lotteries, &c. (1908). The statute law in Scotland is the same as in England. At common law in Scotland it is probable that all lotteries and raffles, for whatever purpose held, may be indicted as nuisances. The art unions are supposed to be protected by a special statute.

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

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

Authorities.—Critique hist. pol. mor. econ. et comm. sur les loteries anc. et mod. spirituelles et temporelles des états et des églises (3 vols., Amsterdam, 1697), by the Bolognese historian Gregorio Leti; J. Dessaulx, De la passion du jeu depuis les anciens temps jusqu’à nos jours (Paris, 1779); Endemann, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Lottrie und zur heutigen Lotterie (Bonn, 1882); Larson, Lottrie und Volkswirtschaft (Berlin, 1894); J. Ashton, History of English Lotteries (1893); Annual Report of the American Historical Association (1892); Journal of the American Social Science Association, xxxvi. 17.

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

LOTTI, ANTONIO (1667?-1740), Italian musical composer, was the son of Matteo Lotti, Kapellmeister to the court of Hanover. He was born, however, at Venice and as a pupil of Legrenzi. He entered the Doge’s chapel as a boy, and in 1689 was engaged as an alto singer, succeeding later to the posts of deputy organist (1690), second organist (1692), first organist (1704), and, finally, in 1736 Maestro di Cappella at St Mark’s church. He was also a composer of operas, and having attracted the interest of the crown prince of Saxony during his visit to Venice in 1712, he was invited to Dresden, where he went in 1717. After producing three operas there he was obliged to return to his duties at Venice in 1719. He died on the 5th of January 1740. Like many other Venetian composers he wrote operas for Vienna, and enjoyed a considerable reputation outside Italy. A volume of madrigals published in 1705 contains the famous In una siepe ombrosa, passed off by Bononcini as his own in London. Another is quoted by Martini in his Saggio di Contrappunto. Among his pupils were Alberti, Bassani, Galuppi, Gasparini and Marcello. Burney justly praises his church music, which is severe in style, but none the less modern in its grace and pathos. A fine setting of the Dies Irae is in the Imperial Library at Vienna, and some of his masses have been printed in the collections of Proske and Lück.

LOTTO, LORENZO (c. 1480-1556), Italian painter, is variously stated to have been born at Bergamo, Venice and Treviso, between 1475 and 1480, but a document published by Dr Bampo proves that he was born in Venice, and it is to be gathered from his will that 1480 was probably the year of his birth. Overshadowed by the genius of his three great contemporaries, Titian, Giorgione and Palma, he had been comparatively neglected by art historians until Mr Bernhard Berenson devoted to him an “essay in constructive art criticism,” which not only restores to him his rightful position among the great masters of the Renaissance, but also throws clear light upon the vexed question of his artistic descent. Earlier authorities have made Lotto a pupil of Giovanni Bellini (Morelli), of Previtali (Crowe and Cavalcaselle), of Leonardo da Vinci (Lomazzo), whilst others discovered in his work the influences of Cima, Carpaccio, Dürer, Palma and Francia. Mr Berenson has, however, proved that he was the pupil of Alvise Vivarini, whose religious severity and asceticism remained paramount in his work, even late in his life, when he was attracted by the rich glow of Giorgione’s and Titian’s colour. What distinguishes Lotto from his more famous contemporaries is his psychological insight into character and his personal vision—his unconventionality, which is sufficient to account for the comparative neglect suffered by him when his art is placed beside the more typical art of Titian and Giorgione, the supreme expression of the character of the period.

That Lotto, who was one of the most productive painters of his time, could work for thirty years without succumbing to the mighty influence of Titian’s sumptuous colour, is explained by the fact that during these years he was away from Venice, as is abundantly proved by documents and by the evidence of signed and dated works. The first of these documents, dated 1503, proves him to have lived at Treviso at this period. His earliest authentic pictures, Sir Martin Conway’s “Danaë” (about 1498) and the “St Jerome” of the Louvre (a similar subject is at the Madrid Gallery ascribed to Titian), as indeed all the works executed before 1509, have unmistakable Vivarinesque traits in the treatment of the drapery and landscape, and cool grey tonality. To this group belong the Madonnas at Bridgewater House, Villa Borghese, Naples, and Sta Cristina near Treviso, the Recanati altarpiece, the “Assumption of the Virgin” at Asolo, and the portrait of a young man at Hampton Court. We find him at Rome between 1508 and 1512, at the time Raphael was painting in the Stanza della Signatura. A document in the Corsini library mentions that Lotto received 100 ducats as an advance payment for fresco-work in the upper floor of the Vatican, but there is no evidence that this work was ever executed. In the next dated works, the “Entombment” at Jesi (1512), and the “Transfiguration,” “St James,” and “St Vincent” at Recanati, Lotto has abandoned the dryness and cool colour of his earlier style, and adopted a fluid method and a blonde, joyful colouring. In 1513 we find him at Bergamo, where he had entered into a contract to paint for 500 gold ducats an altarpiece for S. Stefano. The picture was only completed in 1516, and is now at S. Bartolommeo. From the next years, spent mostly at Bergamo, with intervals in Venice and Jesi in the Marches, date the Dresden “Madonna,” “Christ taking leave of his Mother” at the Berlin Gallery, the “Bride and Bridegroom” at Madrid, the National Gallery “Family Group” and portrait of the Protonothary Giuliano, several portraits in Berlin, Milan and Vienna, numerous altarpieces in and near Bergamo, the strangely misnamed “Triumph of Chastity” at the Rospigliosi Palace in Rome, and the portrait of Andrea Odoni at Hampton Court. In 1526 or 1527 Lotto returned to Venice, where Titian ruled supreme in the world of art; and it was only natural that the example of the great master should have fired him to emulation, though his experiments in this direction were confined to an attempt at rivalling the master’s rich and ruddy colour-schemes. Even in the Carmine altarpiece, the “St Nicholas of Bari,” which is his nearest approach to Titian, he retained his individualized, as opposed to Titian’s generalized, expression of emotion. But it was only a passing phase, and he soon returned to the cooler schemes of his earlier work. Among his chief pictures executed in Venice between 1529 and 1540 are the “Christ and the Adulteress,” now at the Louvre, the “Visitation” at the Jesi Library, the “Crucifixion” at Monte S. Giusto, the Madonna at the Uffizi, the “Madonna and Saints” at Cingoli, and some portraits at the Berlin and Vienna museums, the Villa Borghese and Doria Palace in Rome, and at Dorchester House. He is again to be found at Treviso from 1542-1545, at Ancona in 1550, the year in which he entirely lost his voice; and in 1552 he “devoted his person and all his property to the Holy Virgin of Loreto” and took up his abode with the monks of that shrine. He died in 1556. A codex in his own handwriting, discovered in the archives of Loreto, not only includes a complete statement of his accounts from about 1539 to his death, but has a most interesting entry from which we gather that in 1540 Lotto completed the portraits of Martin Luther and his wife. These portraits could not have been painted from life; they were presumably executed from some contemporary engraving.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lotze’s first essay was his dissertation De futurae biologiae principibus philosophicis, with which he gained (1838) the degree of doctor of medicine, after having only four months previously got the degree of doctor of philosophy. Then, secondly, there arose the question whether the methods of exact science sufficed to explain the connexion of phenomena, or whether for the explanation of this the thinking mind was forced to resort to some hypothesis not immediately verifiable by observation, but dictated by higher aspirations and interests. And, if to satisfy these we were forced to maintain the existence of a world of moral standards, it was, thirdly, necessary to form some opinion as to the relation of these moral standards of value to the forms and facts of phenomenal existence. These different tasks, which philosophy had to fulfil, mark pretty accurately the aims of Lotze’s writings, and the order in which they were published. He laid the foundation of his philosophical system very early in his Metaphysik (Leipzig, 1841) and his Logik (1843), short books published while he was still a junior lecturer at Leipzig, from which university he migrated to Göttingen, succeeding Herbart in the chair of philosophy. But it was only during the last decade of his life that he ventured, with much hesitation, to present his ideas in a systematic and final form. The two books mentioned remained unnoticed by the reading public, and Lotze first became known to a larger circle through a series of works which aimed at establishing in the study of the physical and mental phenomena of the human organism in its normal and diseased states the same general principles which had been adopted in the investigation of inorganic phenomena. These works were his Allgemeine Pathologie und Therapie als mechanische Naturwissenschaften (Leipzig, 1842, 2nd ed., 1848), the articles “Lebenskraft” (1843) and “Seele und Seelenleben” (1846) in Rud. Wagner’s Handwörterbuch der Physiologie, his Allgemeine Physiologie des Körperlichen Lebens (Leipzig, 1851), and his Medizinische Psychologie oder Physiologie der Seele (Leipzig, 1852).

When Lotze published these works, medical science was still much under the influence of Schelling’s philosophy of nature. The mechanical laws, to which external things were subject, were conceived as being valid only in the inorganic world; in the organic and mental worlds these mechanical laws were conceived as being disturbed or overridden by other powers, such as the influence of final causes, the existence of types, the work of vital and mental forces. This confusion Lotze, who had been trained in the school of mathematical reasoning, tried to dispel. The laws which govern particles of matter in the inorganic world govern them likewise if they are joined into an organism. A phenomenon a, if followed by b in the one case, is followed by the same b also in the other case. Final causes, vital and mental forces, the soul itself can, if they act at all, only act through the inexorable mechanism of natural laws. As we therefore have only to do with the study of existing complexes of material and spiritual phenomena, the changes in these must be explained in science by the rule of mechanical laws, such as obtain everywhere in the world, and only by such. One of the results of these investigations was to extend the meaning of the word mechanism, and comprise under it all laws which obtain in the phenomenal world, not excepting the phenomena of life and mind. Mechanism was the unalterable connexion of every phenomenon a with other phenomena b, c, d, either as following or preceding it; mechanism was the inexorable form into which the events of this world are cast, and by which they are connected. The object of those writings was to establish the all-pervading rule of mechanism. But the mechanical view of nature is not identical with the materialistic. In the last of the above-mentioned works the question is discussed at great length how we have to consider mind, and the relation between mind and body; the answer is—we have to consider mind as an immaterial principle, its action, however, on the body and vice versa as purely mechanical, indicated by the fixed laws of a psycho-physical mechanism. These doctrines of Lotze—though pronounced with the distinct and reiterated reserve that they did not contain a solution of the philosophical question regarding the nature, origin, or deeper meaning of this all-pervading mechanism, neither an explanation how the action of external things on each other takes place nor yet of the relation of mind and body, that they were merely a preliminary formula of practical scientific value, itself requiring a deeper interpretation—these doctrines were nevertheless by many considered to be the last word of the philosopher who, denouncing the reveries of Schelling or the idealistic theories of Hegel, established the science of life and mind on the same basis as that of material things. Published as they were during the years when the modern school of German materialism was at its height,1 these works of Lotze were counted among the opposition literature which destroyed the phantom of Hegelian wisdom and vindicated the independent and self-sufficing position of empirical philosophy. Even philosophers of the eminence of I. H. Fichte (the younger) did not escape this misinterpretation of Lotze’s true meaning, though they had his Metaphysik and Logik to refer to, though he promised in his Allgemeine Physiologie (1851) to enter in a subsequent work upon the “bounding province between aesthetics and physiology,” and though in his Medizinische Psychologie he had distinctly stated that his position was neither the idealism of Hegel nor the realism of Herbart, nor materialism, but that it was the conviction that the essence of everything is the part it plays in the realization of some idea which is in itself valuable, that the sense of an all-pervading mechanism is to be sought in this, that it denotes the ways and means by which the highest idea, which we may call the idea of the good, has voluntarily chosen to realize itself.

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

When Lotze wrote these explanations, he had already given to the world the first volume of his great work, Mikrokosmus (vol. i. 1856, vol. ii. 1858, vol. iii. 1864; 3rd ed., 1876-1880). In many passages of his works on pathology, physiology, and psychology Lotze had distinctly stated that the method of research which he advocated there did not give an explanation of the phenomena of life and mind, but only the means of observing and connecting them together; that the meaning of all phenomena, and the reason of their peculiar connexions, was a philosophical problem which required to be attacked from a different point of view; and that the significance especially which lay in the phenomena of life and mind would only unfold itself if by an exhaustive survey of the entire life of man, individually, socially, and historically, we gain the necessary data for deciding what meaning attaches to the existence of this microcosm, or small world of human life, in the macrocosm of the universe. This review, which extends, in three volumes, over the wide field of anthropology, beginning with the human frame, the soul, and their union in life, advancing to man, his mind, and the course of the world, and concluding with history, progress, and the connexion of things, ends with the same idea which was expressed in Lotze’s earliest work, his Metaphysik. The view peculiar to him is reached in the end as the crowning conception towards which all separate channels of thought have tended, and in the light of which the life of man in nature and mind, in the individual and in society, had been surveyed. This view can be briefly stated as follows: Everywhere in the wide realm of observation we find three distinct regions,—the region of facts, the region of laws and the region of standards of value. These three regions are separate only in our thoughts, not in reality. To comprehend the real position we are forced to the conviction that the world of facts is the field in which, and that laws are the means by which, those higher standards of moral and aesthetical value are being realized; and such a union can again only become intelligible through the idea of a personal Deity, who in the creation and preservation of a world has voluntarily chosen certain forms and laws, through the natural operation of which the ends of His work are gained.

Whilst Lotze had thus in his published works closed the circle of his thought, beginning with a conception metaphysically gained, proceeding to an exhaustive contemplation of things in the light it afforded, and ending with the stronger conviction of its truth which observation, experience, and life could afford, he had all the time been lecturing on the various branches of philosophy according to the scheme of academical instruction transmitted from his predecessors. Nor can it be considered anything but a gain that he was thus induced to expound his views with regard to those topics, and in connexion with those problems, which were the traditional forms of philosophical utterance. His lectures ranged over a wide field: he delivered annually lectures on psychology and on logic (the latter including a survey of the entirety of philosophical research under the title Encyclopädie der Philosophie), then at longer intervals lectures on metaphysics, philosophy of nature, philosophy of art, philosophy of religion, rarely on history of philosophy and ethics. In these lectures he expounded his peculiar views in a stricter form, and during the last decade of his life he embodied the substance of those courses in his System der Philosophie, of which only two volumes have appeared (vol. i. Logik, 1st ed., Leipzig, 1874, 2nd ed., 1880; vol. ii. Metaphysik, 1879). The third and concluding volume, which was to treat in a more condensed form the principal problems of practical philosophy, of philosophy of art and religion, never appeared. A small pamphlet on psychology, containing the last form in which he had begun to treat the subject in his lectures (abruptly terminated through his death on the 1st of July 1881) during the summer session of 1881, has been published by his son. Appended to this volume is a complete list of Lotze’s writings, compiled by Professor Rehnisch of Göttingen.

To understand this series of Lotze’s writings, it is necessary to begin with his definition of philosophy. This is given after his exposition of logic has established two points, viz. the existence in our mind of certain laws and forms according to which we connect the material supplied to us by our senses, and, secondly, the fact that logical thought cannot be usefully employed without the assumption of a further set of connexions, not logically necessary, but assumed to exist between the data of experience and observation. These connexions of a real not formal character are handed to us by the separate sciences and by the usage and culture of everyday life. Language has crystallized them into certain definite notions and expressions, without which we cannot proceed a single step, but which we have accepted without knowing their exact meaning, much less their origin. In consequence the special sciences and the wisdom of common life entangle themselves easily and frequently in contradictions. A problem of a purely formal character thus presents itself, viz. this—to try to bring unity and harmony into the scattered thoughts of our general culture, to trace them to their primary assumptions and follow them into their ultimate consequences, to connect them all together, to remodel, curtail or amplify them, so as to remove their apparent contradictions, and to combine them in the unity of an harmonious view of things, and especially to investigate those conceptions which form the initial assumptions of the several sciences, and to fix the limits of their applicability. This is the formal definition of philosophy. Whether an harmonious conception thus gained will represent more than an agreement among our thoughts, whether it will represent the real connexion of things and thus possess objective not merely subjective value, cannot be decided at the outset. It is also unwarranted to start with the expectation that everything in the world should be explained by one principle, and it is a needless restriction of our means to expect unity of method. Nor are we able to start our philosophical investigations by an inquiry into the nature of human thought and its capacity to attain an objective knowledge, as in this case we would be actually using that instrument the usefulness of which we were trying to determine. The main proof of the objective value of the view we may gain will rather lie in the degree in which it succeeds in assigning to every element of culture its due position, or in which it is able to appreciate and combine different and apparently opposite tendencies and interests, in the sort of justice with which it weighs our manifold desires and aspirations, balancing them in due proportions, refusing to sacrifice to a one-sided principle any truth or conviction which experience has proven to be useful and necessary. The investigations will then naturally divide themselves into three parts, the first of which deals with those to our mind inevitable forms in which we are obliged to think about things, if we think at all (metaphysics), the second being devoted to the great region of facts, trying to apply the results of metaphysics to these, specially the two great regions of external and mental phenomena (cosmology and psychology), the third dealing with those standards of value from which we pronounce our aesthetical or ethical approval or disapproval. In each department we shall have to aim first of all at views clear and consistent within themselves, but, secondly, we shall in the end wish to form some general idea or to risk an opinion how laws, facts and standards of value may be combined in one comprehensive view. Considerations of this latter kind will naturally present themselves in the two great departments of cosmology and psychology, or they may be delegated to an independent research under the name of religious philosophy. We have already mentioned the final conception in which Lotze’s speculation culminates, that of a personal Deity, Himself the essence of all that merits existence for its own sake, who in the creation and government of a world has voluntarily chosen certain laws and forms through which His ends are to be realized. We may add that according to this view nothing is real but the living spirit of God and the world of living spirits which He has created; the things of this world have only reality in so far as they are the appearance of spiritual substance, which underlies everything. It is natural that Lotze, having this great and final conception always before him, works under its influence from the very beginning of his speculations, permitting us, as we progress, to gain every now and then a glimpse of that interpretation of things which to him contains the solution of our difficulties.

The key to Lotze’s theoretical philosophy lies in his metaphysics, to the exposition of which important subject the first and last of his larger publications have been devoted. To understand Lotze’s philosophy, a careful and repeated perusal of these works is absolutely necessary. The object of his metaphysics is so to remodel the current notions regarding the existence of things and their connexions with which the usage of language supplies us as to make them consistent and thinkable. The further assumption, that the modified notions thus gained have an objective meaning, and that they somehow correspond to the real order of the existing world which of course they can never actually describe, depends upon a general confidence which we must have in our reasoning powers, and in the significance of a world in which we ourselves with all the necessary courses of our thoughts have a due place assigned. The principle therefore of these investigations is opposed to two attempts frequently repeated in the history of philosophy, viz.: (1) the attempt to establish general laws or forms, which the development of things must have obeyed, or which a Creator must have followed in the creation of a world (Hegel); and (2) the attempt to trace the genesis of our notions and decide as to their meaning and value (modern theories of knowledge). Neither of these attempts is practicable. The world of many things surrounds us; our notions, by which we manage correctly or incorrectly to describe it, are also ready made. What remains to be done is, not to explain how such a world manages to be what it is, nor how we came to form these notions, but merely this—to expel from the circle and totality of our conceptions those abstract notions which are inconsistent and jarring, or to remodel and define them so that they may constitute a consistent and harmonious view. In this endeavour Lotze discards as useless and untenable many favourite conceptions of the school, many crude notions of everyday life. The course of things and their connexion is only thinkable by the assumption of a plurality of existences, the reality of which (as distinguished from our knowledge of them) can be conceived only as a multitude of relations. This quality of standing in relation to other things is that which gives to a thing its reality. And the nature of this reality again can neither be consistently represented as a fixed and hard substance nor as an unalterable something, but only as a fixed order of recurrence of continually changing events or impressions. But, further, every attempt to think clearly what those relations are, what we really mean, if we talk of a fixed order of events, forces upon us the necessity of thinking also that the different things which stand in relations or the different phases which follow each other cannot be merely externally strung together or moved about by some indefinable external power, in the form of some predestination or inexorable fate. The things themselves which exist and their changing phases must stand in some internal connexion; they themselves must be active or passive, capable of doing or suffering. This would lead to the view of Leibnitz, that the world consists of monads, self-sufficient beings, leading an inner life. But this idea involves the further conception of Leibnitz, that of a pre-established harmony, by which the Creator has taken care to arrange the life of each monad, so that it agrees with that of all others. This conception, according to Lotze, is neither necessary nor thoroughly intelligible. Why not interpret at once and render intelligible the common conception originating in natural science, viz. that of a system of laws which governs the many things? But, in attempting to make this conception quite clear and thinkable, we are forced to represent the connexion of things as a universal substance, the essence of which we conceive as a system of laws which underlies everything and in its own self connects everything, but imperceptible, and known to us merely through the impressions it produces on us, which we call things. A final reflection then teaches us that the nature of this universal and all-pervading substance can only be imagined by us as something analogous to our own mental life, where alone we experience the unity of a substance (which we call self) preserved in the multitude of its (mental) states. It also becomes clear that only where such mental life really appears need we assign an independent existence, but that the purposes of everyday life as well as those of science are equally served if we deprive the material things outside of us of an independence, and assign to them merely a connected existence through the universal substance by the action of which alone they can appear to us.

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

We have still to mention that aesthetics formed a principal and favourite study of Lotze’s, and that he has treated this subject also in the light of the leading ideas of his philosophy. See his essays Ueber den Begriff der Schönheit (Göttingen, 1845) and Ueber Bedingungen der Kunstschönheit, ibid. (1847); and especially his Geschichte der Aesthetik in Deutschland (Munich, 1868).

Lotze’s historical position is of much interest. Though he disclaims being a follower of Herbart, his formal definition of philosophy and his conception of the object of metaphysics are similar to those of Herbart, who defines philosophy as an attempt to remodel the notions given by experience. In this endeavour he forms with Herbart an opposition to the philosophies of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, which aimed at objective and absolute knowledge, and also to the criticism of Kant, which aimed at determining the validity of all human knowledge. But this formal agreement includes material differences, and the spirit which breathes in Lotze’s writings is more akin to the objects and aspirations of the idealistic school than to the cold formalism of Herbart. What, however, with the idealists was an object of thought alone, the absolute, is to Lotze only inadequately definable in rigorous philosophical language; the aspirations of the human heart, the contents of our feelings and desires, the aims of art and the tenets of religious faith must be grasped in order to fill the empty idea of the absolute with meaning. These manifestations of the divine spirit again cannot be traced and understood by reducing (as Hegel did) the growth of the human mind in the individual, in society and in history to the monotonous rhythm of a speculative schematism; the essence and worth which is in them reveals itself only to the student of detail, for reality is larger and wider than philosophy; the problem, “how the one can be many,” is only solved for us in the numberless examples in life and experience which surround us, for which we must retain a lifelong interest and which constitute the true field of all useful human work. This conviction of the emptiness of terms and abstract notions, and of the fulness of individual life, has enabled Lotze to combine in his writings the two courses into which German philosophical thought had been moving since the death of its great founder, Leibnitz. We may define these courses by the terms esoteric and exoteric—the former the philosophy of the school, cultivated principally at the universities, trying to systematize everything and reduce all our knowledge to an intelligible principle, losing in this attempt the deeper meaning of Leibnitz’s philosophy; the latter the unsystematized philosophy of general culture which we find in the work of the great writers of the classical period, Lessing, Winkelmann, Goethe, Schiller and Herder, all of whom expressed in some degree their indebtedness to Leibnitz. Lotze can be said to have brought philosophy out of the lecture-room into the market-place of life. By understanding and combining what was great and valuable in those divided and scattered endeavours, he became the true successor of Leibnitz.

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

See E. Pfleiderer, Lotze’s philosophische Weltanschauung nach ihren Grundzügen (Berlin, 1882; 2nd ed., 1884); E. von Hartmann, Lotze’s Philosophie (Leipzig, 1888); O. Caspari, H. Lotze in seiner Stellung zu der durch Kant begründeten neuesten Geschichte der Philosophie (Breslau, 1883; 2nd ed., 1894); R. Falckenberg, Hermann Lotze (Stuttgart, 1901); Henry Jones, A Critical Account of the Philosophy of Lotze (Glasgow, 1895); Paul Lange, Die Lehre vom Instincte bei Lotze und Darwin (Berlin, 1896); A. Lichtenstein, Lotze und Wundt (Bern, 1900).

(J. T. M.; H. St.)

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

LOUBET, ÉMILE FRANÇOIS (1838- ), 7th president of the French republic, was born on the 30th of December 1838, the son of a peasant proprietor at Marsanne (Drôme), who was more than once mayor of Marsanne. He was admitted to the Parisian bar in 1862, and took his doctorate-in-law next year. He was still a student when he witnessed the sweeping triumph of the Republican party in Paris at the general election in 1863. He settled down to the exercise of his profession in Montélimar, where he married in 1869 Marie Louis Picard. He also inherited a small estate at Grignan. At the crisis of 1870 he became mayor of Montélimar, and thenceforward was a steady supporter of Gambetta’s policy. Elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 1876 by Montélimar he was one of the famous 363 who in June 1877 passed the vote of want of confidence in the ministry of the duc de Broglie. In the general election of October he was re-elected, local enthusiasm for him being increased by the fact that the government had driven him from the mayoralty. In the Chamber he occupied himself especially with education, fighting the clerical system established by the Loi Falloux, and working for the establishment of free, obligatory and secular primary instruction. In 1880 he became president of the departmental council in Drôme. His support of the second Jules Ferry ministry and his zeal for the colonial expansion of France gave him considerable weight in the moderate Republican party. He had entered the Senate in 1885, and he became minister of public works in the Tirard ministry (December 1887 to March 1888). In 1892 President Sadi Carnot, who was his personal friend, asked him to form a cabinet. Loubet held the portfolio of the interior with the premiership, and had to deal with the anarchist crimes of that year and with the great strike of Carmaux, in which he acted as arbitrator, giving a decision regarded in many quarters as too favourable to the strikers. He was defeated in November on the question of the Panama scandals, but he retained the ministry of the interior in the next cabinet under Alexandre Ribot, though he resigned on its reconstruction in January. His reputation as an orator of great force and lucidity of exposition and as a safe and honest statesman procured for him in 1896 the presidency of the Senate, and in February 1899 he was chosen president of the republic in succession to Félix Fauré by 483 votes as against 279 recorded by Jules Méline, his only serious competitor. He was marked out for fierce opposition and bitter insult as the representative of that section of the Republican party which sought the revision of the Dreyfus case. On the day of President Faure’s funeral Paul Déroulède met the troops under General Roget on their return to barracks, and demanded that the general should march on the Élysée. Roget sensibly took his troops back to barracks. At the Auteuil steeplechase in June the president was struck on the head with a cane by an anti-Dreyfusard. In that month President Loubet summoned Waldeck-Rousseau to form a cabinet, and at the same time entreated Republicans of all shades of opinion to rally to the defence of the state. By the efforts of Loubet and Waldeck-Rousseau the Dreyfus affair was settled, when Loubet, acting on the advice of General Galliffet, minister of war, remitted the ten years’ imprisonment to which Dreyfus was condemned at Rennes. Loubet’s presidency saw an acute stage of the clerical question, which was attacked by Waldeck-Rousseau and in still more drastic fashion by the Combes ministry. The French ambassador was recalled from the Vatican in April 1905, and in July the separation of church and state was voted in the Chamber of Deputies. Feeling had run high between France and England over the mutual criticisms passed on the conduct of the South African War and the Dreyfus case respectively. These differences were composed by the Anglo-French entente, and in 1904 a convention between the two countries secured the recognition of French claims in Morocco in exchange for non-interference with the English occupation of Egypt. President Loubet was a typical example of the peasant-proprietor class, and had none of the aristocratic, not to say monarchical, proclivities of President Fauré. He inaugurated the Paris Exhibition of 1900, received the tsar Nicholas II. in September 1901 and paid a visit to Russia in 1902. He also exchanged visits with King Edward VII., with the king of Italy and the king of Spain. The king of Spain’s visit in 1905 was the occasion of an attempt on his life, a bomb being thrown under his carriage as he was proceeding with his guest to the opera. His presidency came to an end in January 1906, when he retired into private life.

LOUDON, ERNST GIDEON, Freiherr von (1717-1790), Austrian soldier, was born at Tootzen in Livonia, on the 2nd of February 1717. His family, of Scottish origin,1 had been settled in that country since before 1400. His father was a lieutenant-colonel, retired on a meagre pension from the Swedish service, and the boy was sent in 1732 into the Russian army as a cadet. He took part in Field Marshal Münnich’s siege of Danzig in 1734, in the march of a Russian corps to the Rhine in 1735 and in the Turkish war 1738-1739. Dissatisfied with his prospects he resigned in 1741 and sought military employment elsewhere. He applied first to Frederick the Great, who declined his services. At Vienna he had better fortune, being made a captain in Trenck’s free corps. He took part in its forays and marches, though not in its atrocities, until wounded and taken prisoner in Alsace. He was shortly released by the advance of the main Austrian army. His next active service, still under Trenck, was in the Silesian mountains in 1745, in which campaign he greatly distinguished himself as a leader of light troops. He was present also at Soor. He retired shortly afterwards, owing to his distaste for the lawless habits of his comrades in the irregulars, and after long waiting in poverty for a regular commission he was at last made a captain in one of the frontier regiments, spending the next ten years in half-military, half-administrative work in the Carlstadt district. At Bunich, where he was stationed, he built a church and planted an oak forest now called by his name. He had reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel when the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War called him again into the field. From this point began his fame as a soldier. Soon promoted colonel, he distinguished himself repeatedly and was in 1757 made a General-feldwacht-meister (major-general of cavalry) and a knight of the newly founded order of Maria Theresa. In the campaign of 1758 came his first opportunity for fighting an action as a commander-in-chief, and he used it so well that Frederick the Great was obliged to give up the siege of Olmütz and retire into Bohemia (action of Dom-stadtl, 30th of June). He was rewarded with the grade of lieutenant-field-marshal and having again shown himself an active and daring commander in the campaign of Hochkirch, he was created a Freiherr in the Austrian nobility by Maria Theresa and in the peerage of the Holy Roman Empire by her husband the emperor Francis. Maria Theresa gave him, further, the grand cross of the order she had founded and an estate near Kuttenberg in Bohemia. He was placed in command of the Austrian contingent sent to join the Russians on the Oder. At Kunersdorf he turned defeat into a brilliant victory, and was promoted Feldzeugmeister and made commander-in-chief in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. In 1760 he destroyed a whole corps of Frederick’s army under Fouqué at Landshut and stormed the important fortress of Glatz. In 1760 he sustained a reverse at Frederick’s hands in the battle of Liegnitz (Aug. 15th, 1760), which action led to bitter controversy with Daun and Lacy, the commanders of the main army, who, Loudon claimed, had left his corps unsupported. In 1761 he operated, as usual, in Silesia, but he found his Russian allies as timid as they had been after Kunersdorf, and all attempts against Frederick’s entrenched camp of Bunzelwitz (see Seven Years’ War) failed. He brilliantly seized his one fleeting opportunity, however, and stormed Schweidnitz on the night of Sept. 30/October 1st, 1761. His tireless activity continued to the end of the war, in conspicuous contrast with the temporizing strategy of Daun and Lacy. The student of the later campaigns of the Seven Years’ War will probably admit that there was need of more aggressiveness than Daun displayed, and of more caution than suited Loudon’s genius. But neither recognized this, and the last three years of the war are marked by an ever-increasing friction between the “Fabius” and the “Marcellus,” as they were called, of the Austrian army.

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

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

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

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

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

LOUDOUN, JOHN CAMPBELL, 1st Earl of (1598-1663), Scottish politician, eldest son of Sir James Campbell of Lawers, became Baron Loudoun in right of his wife Margaret, granddaughter of Hugh Campbell, 1st Baron Loudoun (d. 1622). He was created earl on the 12th of May 1633, but in consequence of his opposition to Charles I.’s church policy in Scotland the patent was stopped in Chancery. In 1637 he was one of the supplicants against the introduction of the English liturgy; and with John Leslie, 6th earl of Rothes, he took a leading part in the promulgation of the Covenant and in the General Assembly which met at Glasgow in the autumn of 1638. He served under General Leslie, and was one of the Scottish commissioners at the Pacification of Berwick in June 1639. In November of that year and again in 1640 the Scottish estates sent Loudoun with Charles Seton, 2nd earl of Dunfermline, to London on an embassy to Charles I. Loudoun intrigued with the French ambassador and with Thomas Savile, afterwards earl of Sussex, but without much success. He was in London when John Stewart, earl of Traquair, placed in Charles’s hands a letter signed by Loudoun and six others and addressed to Louis XIII. In spite of his protest that the letter was never sent, and that it would in any case be covered by the amnesty granted at Berwick, he was sent to the Tower. He was released in June, and two months later he re-entered England with the Scottish invading army, and was one of the commissioners at Ripon in October. In the following August (1641) Charles opened parliament at Edinburgh in person, and in pursuance of a policy of conciliation towards the leaders of the Covenant Loudoun was made lord chancellor of Scotland, and his title of earl of Loudoun was allowed. He also became first commissioner of the treasury. In 1642 he was sent by the Scottish council to York to offer to mediate in the dispute between Charles and the parliament, and later on to Oxford, but in the second of these instances Charles refused to accept his authority. He was constantly employed in subsequent negotiations, and in 1647 was sent to Charles at Carisbrooke Castle, but the “Engagement” to assist the king there made displeased the extreme Covenanters, and Loudoun was obliged to retract his support of it. He was now entirely on the side of the duke of Argyll and the preachers. He assisted in the capacity of lord chancellor at Charles II.’s coronation at Scone, and was present at Dunbar. He joined in the royalist rising of 1653, but eventually surrendered to General Monk. His estates were forfeited by Cromwell, and a sum of money settled on the countess and her heirs. At the Restoration he was removed from the chancellorship, but a pension of £1000 granted him by Charles I. in 1643 was still allowed him. In 1662 he was heavily fined. He died in Edinburgh on the 15th of March 1663.

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

LOUDUN, a town of western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Vienne, on an eminence overlooking a fertile plain, 45 m. by rail S.W. of Tours. Pop. (1906) 3931. It was formerly surrounded by walls, of which a single gateway and two towers remain. Of the old castle of the counts of Anjou which was destroyed under Richelieu, the site now forming a public promenade, a fine rectangular donjon of the 12th century is preserved; at its base traces of Roman constructions have been found, with fragments of porphyry pavement, mosaics and mural paintings. The Carmelite convent was the scene of the trial of Urban Grandier, who was burnt alive for witchcraft in 1634; the old Romanesque church of Sainte Croix, of which he was curé, is now used as a market. The church of St Pierre-du-Marché, Gothic in style with a Renaissance portal, has a lofty stone spire. There are several curious old houses in the town. Théophraste Renaudot (d. 1653), founder of the Gazette de France, was born at Loudun, where there is a statue of him. The manufacture of lace and upholstery trimming and of farm implements is carried on, and there is a considerable trade in agricultural products, wine, &c. Loudun (Laudunum in ancient times) was a town of importance during the religious wars and gave its name in 1616 to a treaty favourable to the Protestants.

LOUGHBOROUGH, a market town and municipal borough in the Loughborough (Mid) parliamentary division of Leicestershire, England, near the river Soar and on the Loughborough canal. Pop. (1901) 21,508. It is 110 m. N.N.W. of London by the Midland railway, and is served by the Great Central and a branch of the London and North-Western railways. The neighbourhood is a rich agricultural district, and to the S.W. lies the hilly tract known as Charnwood Forest. The church of All Saints stands on rising ground, and is a conspicuous object for many miles round; it is of Decorated work, and the tower is Perpendicular. The other churches are modern. Public buildings include the town hall and exchange, town offices, county hall and free library. The grammar school, founded in 1495 under the charity of Thomas Burton, occupies modern buildings in pleasant grounds. There is also a girls’ grammar school partly dependent on the same foundation. The principal industry is hosiery making; there are also engineering, iron and dye works and bell foundries. The great bell for St Paul’s cathedral, London, was cast here in 1881. Loughborough was incorporated in 1888. Area, 3045 acres.

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