THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XVI SLICE V
Letter to Lightfoot, John

Articles in This Slice

LETTER (through Fr. lettre from Lat. littera or litera, letter of the alphabet; the origin of the Latin word is obscure; it has probably no connexion with the root of linere, to smear, i.e. with wax, for an inscription with a stilus), a character or symbol expressing any one of the elementary sounds into which a spoken word may be analysed, one of the members of an alphabet. As applied to things written, the word follows mainly the meanings of the Latin plural litterae, the most common meaning attaching to the word being that of a written communication from one person to another, an epistle (q.v.). For the means adopted to secure the transmission of letters see [Post and Postal Service]. The word is also, particularly in the plural, applied to many legal and formal written documents, as in letters patent, letters rogatory and dismissory, &c. The Latin use of the plural is also followed in the employment of “letters” in the sense of literature (q.v.) or learning.

LETTERKENNY, a market town of Co. Donegal, Ireland, 23 m. W. by S. of Londonderry by the Londonderry and Lough Swilly and Letterkenny railway. Pop. (1901) 2370. It has a harbour at Port Ballyrane, 1 m. distant on Lough Swilly. In the market square a considerable trade in grain, flax and provisions is prosecuted. Rope-making and shirt-making are industries. The handsome Roman Catholic cathedral for the diocese of Raphoe occupies a commanding site, and cost a large sum, as it contains carving from Rome, glass from Munich and a pulpit of Irish and Carrara marble. It was consecrated in 1901. There is a Catholic college dedicated to St Ewnan. The town, which is governed by an urban district council, is a centre for visitors to the county. Its name signifies the “hill of the O’Cannanans,” a family who lorded over Tyrconnell before the rise of the O’Donnells.

LETTER OF CREDIT, a letter, open or sealed, from a banker or merchant, containing a request to some other person or firm to advance the bearer of the letter, or some other person named therein, upon the credit of the writer a particular or an unlimited sum of money. A letter of credit is either general or special. It is general when addressed to merchants or other persons in general, requesting an advance to a third person, and special when addressed to a particular person by name requesting him to make such an advance. A letter of credit is not a negotiable instrument. When a letter of credit is given for the purchase of goods, the letter of credit usually states the particulars of the merchandise against which bills are to be drawn, and shipping documents (bills of lading, invoices, insurance policies) are usually attached to the draft for acceptance.

LETTERS PATENT. It is a rule alike of common law and sound policy that grants of freehold interests, franchises, liberties, &c., by the sovereign to a subject should be made only after due consideration, and in a form readily accessible to the public. These ends are attained in England through the agency of that piece of constitutional machinery known as “letters patent.” It is here proposed to consider only the characteristics of letters patent generally. The law relating to letters patent for inventions is dealt with under the heading [Patents].

Letters patent (litterae patentes) are letters addressed by the sovereign “to all to whom these presents shall come,” reciting the grant of some dignity, office, monopoly, franchise or other privilege to the patentee. They are not sealed up, but are left open (hence the term “patent”), and are recorded in the Patent Rolls in the Record Office, or in the case of very recent grants, in the Chancery Enrolment Office, so that all subjects of the realm may read and be bound by their contents. In this respect they differ from certain other letters of the sovereign directed to particular persons and for particular purposes, which, not being proper for public inspection, are closed up and sealed on the outside, and are thereupon called writs close (litterae clausae) and are recorded in the Close Rolls. Letters patent are used to put into commission various powers inherent in the crown—legislative powers, as when the sovereign entrusts to others the duty of opening parliament or assenting to bills; judicial powers, e.g. of gaol delivery; executive powers, as when the duties of Treasurer and Lord High Admiral are assigned to commissioners of the Treasury and Admiralty (Anson, Const. ii. 47). Letters patent are also used to incorporate bodies by charter—in the British colonies, this mode of legislation is frequently applied to joint stock companies (cf. Rev. Stats. Ontario, c. 191, s. 9)—to grant a congé d’élire to a dean and chapter to elect a bishop, or licence to convocation to amend canons; to grant pardon, and to confer certain offices and dignities. Among grants of offices, &c., made by letters patent the following may be enumerated: offices in the Heralds’ College; the dignities of a peer, baronet and knight bachelor; the appointments of lord-lieutenant, custos rotulorum of counties, judge of the High Court and Indian and Colonial judgeships, king’s counsel, crown livings; the offices of attorney- and solicitor-general, commander-in-chief, master of the horse, keeper of the privy seal, postmaster-general, king’s printer; grants of separate courts of quarter-sessions. The fees payable in respect of the grant of various forms of letters patent are fixed by orders of the lord chancellor, dated 20th of June 1871, 18th of July 1871 and 11th of Aug. 1881. (These orders are set out at length in the Statutory Rules and Orders Revised (ed. 1904), vol. ii. tit. “Clerk of the Crown in Chancery,” pp. i. et seq.) Formerly each colonial governor was appointed and commissioned by letters patent under the great seal of the United Kingdom. But since 1875, the practice has been to create the office of governor in each colony by letters patent, and then to make each appointment to the office by commission under the Royal Sign Manual and to give to the governor so appointed instructions in a uniform shape under the Royal Sign Manual. The letters patent, commission and instructions, are commonly described as the Governor’s Commission (see Jenkyns, British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas, p. 100; the forms now in use are printed in Appx. iv. Also the Statutory Rules and Codes Revised, ed. 1904, under the title of the colony to which they relate). The Colonial Letters Patent Act 1863 provides that letters patent shall not take effect in the colonies or possessions beyond the seas until their publication there by proclamation or otherwise (s. 2), and shall be void unless so published within nine months in the case of colonies east of Bengal or west of Cape Horn, and within six months in any other case. Colonial officers and judges holding offices by patent for life or for a term certain, are removable by a special procedure—“amotion”—by the Governor and Council, subject to a right of appeal to the king in Council (Leave of Absence Act, formerly cited as “Burke’s Act” 1782; see Montagu v. Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, 1849, 6 Moo. P.C. 491; Willis v. Gipps, 1846, 6 St. Trials [N.S., 311]). The law of conquered or ceded colonies may be altered by the crown by letters patent under the Great Seal as well as by Proclamation or Order in Council (Jephson v. Riera, 1835, 3 Knapp, 130; 3 St. Trials [N.S.] 591).

Procedure.—Formerly letters patent were always granted under the Great Seal. But now, under the Crown Office Act 1877, and the Orders in Council made under it, many letters patent are sealed with the wafer great seal. Letters patent for inventions are issued under the seal of the Patent Office. The procedure by which letters patent are obtained is as follows: A warrant for the issue of letters patent is drawn up; and is signed by the lord chancellor; this is submitted to the law officers of the crown, who countersign it; finally, the warrant thus signed and countersigned is submitted to His Majesty, who affixes his signature. The warrant is then sent to the Crown Office and is filed, after it has been acted upon by the issue of letters patent under the great or under the wafer seal as the case may be. The letters patent are then delivered into the custody of those in whose favour they are granted.

Construction.—The construction of letters patent differs from that of other grants in certain particulars: (i.) Letters patent, contrary to the ordinary rule, are construed in a sense favourable to the grantor (viz. the crown) rather than to the grantee; although this rule is said not to apply so strictly where the grant is made for consideration, or where it purports to be made ex certâ scientiâ et mero motu. (ii.) When it appears from the face of the grant that the sovereign has been mistaken or deceived, either in matter of fact or in matter of law, as, e.g. by false suggestion on the part of the patentee, or by misrecital of former grants, or if the grant is contrary to law or uncertain, the letters patent are absolutely void, and may still, it would seem, be cancelled (except as regards letters patent for inventions, which are revoked by a special procedure, regulated by § 26 of the Patents Act 1883), by the procedure known as scire facias, an action brought against the patentee in the name of the crown with the fiat of the attorney-general.

As to letters patent generally, see Bacon’s Abridgment (“Prerogative,” F.); Chitty’s Prerogative; Hindmarsh on Patents (1846); Anson, Law and Custom of the Const. ii. (3rd ed., Oxford and London, 1907-1908).

(A. W. R.)

LETTRES DE CACHET. Considered solely as French documents, lettres de cachet may be defined as letters signed by the king of France, countersigned by one of his ministers, and closed with the royal seal (cachet). They contained an order—in principle, any order whatsoever—emanating directly from the king, and executory by himself. In the case of organized bodies lettres de cachet were issued for the purpose of enjoining members to assemble or to accomplish some definite act; the provincial estates were convoked in this manner, and it was by a lettre de cachet (called lettre de jussion) that the king ordered a parlement to register a law in the teeth of its own remonstrances. The best-known lettres de cachet, however, were those which may be called penal, by which the king sentenced a subject without trial and without an opportunity of defence to imprisonment in a state prison or an ordinary gaol, confinement in a convent or a hospital, transportation to the colonies, or relegation to a given place within the realm.

The power which the king exercised on these various occasions was a royal privilege recognized by old French law, and can be traced to a maxim which furnished a text of the Digest of Justinian: “Rex solutus est a legibus.” This signified particularly that when the king intervened directly in the administration proper, or in the administration of justice, by a special act of his will, he could decide without heeding the laws, and even in a sense contrary to the laws. This was an early conception, and in early times the order in question was simply verbal; thus some letters patent of Henry III. of France in 1576 (Isambert, Anciennes lois françaises, xiv. 278) state that François de Montmorency was “prisoner in our castle of the Bastille in Paris by verbal command” of the late king Charles IX. But in the 14th century the principle was introduced that the order should be written, and hence arose the lettre de cachet. The lettre de cachet belonged to the class of lettres closes, as opposed to lettres patentes, which contained the expression of the legal and permanent will of the king, and had to be furnished with the seal of state affixed by the chancellor. The lettres de cachet, on the contrary, were signed simply by a secretary of state (formerly known as secrétaire des commandements) for the king; they bore merely the imprint of the king’s privy seal, from which circumstance they were often called, in the 14th and 15th centuries, lettres de petit signet or lettres de petit cachet, and were entirely exempt from the control of the chancellor.

While serving the government as a silent weapon against political adversaries or dangerous writers and as a means of punishing culprits of high birth without the scandal of a suit at law, the lettres de cachet had many other uses. They were employed by the police in dealing with prostitutes, and on their authority lunatics were shut up in hospitals and sometimes in prisons. They were also often used by heads of families as a means of correction, e.g. for protecting the family honour from the disorderly or criminal conduct of sons; wives, too, took advantage of them to curb the profligacy of husbands and vice versa. They were issued by the intermediary on the advice of the intendants in the provinces and of the lieutenant of police in Paris. In reality, the secretary of state issued them in a completely arbitrary fashion, and in most cases the king was unaware of their issue. In the 18th century it is certain that the letters were often issued blank, i.e. without containing the name of the person against whom they were directed; the recipient, or mandatary, filled in the name in order to make the letter effective.

Protests against the lettres de cachet were made continually by the parlement of Paris and by the provincial parlements, and often also by the States-General. In 1648 the sovereign courts of Paris procured their momentary suppression in a kind of charter of liberties which they imposed upon the crown, but which was ephemeral. It was not until the reign of Louis XVI. that a reaction against this abuse became clearly perceptible. At the beginning of that reign Malesherbes during his short ministry endeavoured to infuse some measure of justice into the system, and in March 1784 the baron de Breteuil, a minister of the king’s household, addressed a circular to the intendants and the lieutenant of police with a view to preventing the crying abuses connected with the issue of lettres de cachet. In Paris, in 1779, the Cour des Aides demanded their suppression, and in March 1788 the parlement of Paris made some exceedingly energetic remonstrances, which are important for the light they throw upon old French public law. The crown, however, did not decide to lay aside this weapon, and in a declaration to the States-General in the royal session of the 23rd of June 1789 (art. 15) it did not renounce it absolutely. Lettres de cachet were abolished by the Constituent Assembly, but Napoleon re-established their equivalent by a political measure in the decree of the 9th of March 1801 on the state prisons. This was one of the acts brought up against him by the sénatus-consulte of the 3rd of April 1814, which pronounced his fall “considering that he has violated the constitutional laws by the decrees on the state prisons.”

See Honoré Mirabeau, Les Lettres de cachet et des prisons d’état (Hamburg, 1782), written in the dungeon at Vincennes into which his father had thrown him by a lettre de cachet, one of the ablest and most eloquent of his works, which had an immense circulation and was translated into English with a dedication to the duke of Norfolk in 1788; Frantz Funck-Brentano, Les Lettres de cachet à Paris (Paris, 1904); and André Chassaigne, Les Lettres de cachet sous l’ancien régime (Paris, 1903).

(J. P. E.)

LETTUCE, known botanically as Lactuca sativa (nat. ord. Compositae), a hardy annual, highly esteemed as a salad plant. The London market-gardeners make preparation for the first main crop of Cos lettuces in the open ground early in August, a frame being set on a shallow hotbed, and, the stimulus of heat not being required, this is allowed to subside till the first week in October, when the soil, consisting of leaf-mould mixed with a little sand, is put on 6 or 7 in. thick, so that the surface is within 4½ in. of the sashes. The best time for sowing is found to be about the 11th of October, one of the best varieties being Lobjoits Green Cos. When the seeds begin to germinate the sashes are drawn quite off in favourable weather during the day, and put on, but tilted, at night in wet weather. Very little watering is required, and the aim should be to keep the plants gently moving till the days begin to lengthen. In January a more active growth is encouraged, and in mild winters a considerable extent of the planting out is done, but in private gardens the preferable time would be February. The ground should be light and rich, and well manured below, and the plants put out at 1 ft. apart each way with the dibble. Frequent stirring of the ground with the hoe greatly encourages the growth of the plants. A second sowing should be made about the 5th of November, and a third in frames about the end of January or beginning of February. In March a sowing may be made in some warm situation out of doors; successional sowings may be made in the open border about every third or fourth week till August, about the middle of which month a crop of Brown Cos, Hardy Hammersmith or Hardy White Cos should be sown, the latter being the most reliable in a severe winter. These plants may be put out early in October on the sides of ridges facing the south or at the front of a south wall, beyond the reach of drops from the copings, being planted 6 or 8 in. apart. Young lettuce plants should be thinned out in the seed-beds before they crowd or draw each other, and transplanted as soon as possible after two or three leaves are formed. Some cultivators prefer that the summer crops should not be transplanted, but sown where they are to stand, the plants being merely thinned out; but transplanting checks the running to seed, and makes the most of the ground.

For a winter supply by gentle forcing, the Hardy Hammersmith and Brown Dutch Cabbage lettuces, and the Brown Cos and Green Paris Cos lettuces, should be sown about the middle of August and in the beginning of September, in rich light soil, the plants being pricked out 3 in. apart in a prepared bed, as soon as the first two leaves are fully formed. About the middle of October the plants should be taken up carefully with balls attached to the roots, and should be placed in a mild hotbed of well-prepared dung (about 55°) covered about 1 ft. deep with a compost of sandy peat, leaf-mould and a little well-decomposed manure. The Cos and Brown Dutch varieties should be planted about 9 in. apart. Give plenty of air when the weather permits, and protect from frost. For winter work Stanstead Park Cabbage Lettuce is greatly favoured now by London market-gardeners, as it stands the winter well. Lee’s Immense is another good variety, while All the Year Round may be sown for almost any season, but is better perhaps for summer crops.

There are two races of the lettuce, the Cos lettuce, with erect oblong heads, and the Cabbage lettuce, with round or spreading heads,—the former generally crisp, the latter soft and flabby in texture. Some of the best lettuces for general purposes of the two classes are the following:—

Cos: White Paris Cos, best for summer; Green Paris Cos, hardier than the white; Brown Cos, Lobjoits Green Cos, one of the hardiest and best for winter; Hardy White Cos.

Cabbage: Hammersmith Hardy Green; Stanstead Park, very hardy, good for winter; Tom Thumb; Brown Dutch; Neapolitan, best for summer; All the Year Round; Golden Ball, good for forcing in private establishments.

Lactuca virosa, the strong-scented lettuce, contains an alkaloid which has the power of dilating the pupil and may possibly be identical with hyoscyamine, though this point is as yet not determined. No variety of lettuce is now used for any medicinal purpose, though there is probably some slight foundation for the belief that the lettuce has faint narcotic properties.

LEUCADIA, the ancient name of one of the Ionian Islands, now Santa Maura (q.v.), and of its chief town (Hamaxichi).

LEUCIPPUS, Greek philosopher, born at Miletus (or Elea), founder of the Atomistic theory, contemporary of Zeno, Empedocles and Anaxagoras. His fame was so completely overshadowed by that of Democritus, who subsequently developed the theory into a system, that his very existence was denied by Epicurus (Diog. Laërt. x. 7), followed in modern times by E. Rohde. Epicurus, however, distinguishes Leucippus from Democritus, and Aristotle and Theophrastus expressly credit him with the invention of Atomism. There seems, therefore, no reason to doubt his existence, although nothing is known of his life, and even his birthplace is uncertain. Between Leucippus and Democritus there is an interval of at least forty years; accordingly, while the beginnings of Atomism are closely connected with the doctrines of the Eleatics, the system as developed by Democritus is conditioned by the sophistical views of his time, especially those of Protagoras. While Leucippus’s notion of Being agreed generally with that of the Eleatics, he postulated its plurality (atoms) and motion, and the reality of not-Being (the void) in which his atoms moved.

See [Democritus]. On the Rohde-Diels controversy as to the existence of Leucippus, see F. Lortzing in Bursian’s Jahresbericht, vol. cxvi. (1904); also J. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy (1892).

LEUCITE, a rock-forming mineral composed of potassium and aluminium metasilicate KAl(SiO3)2. Crystals have the form of cubic icositetrahedra {211}, but, as first observed by Sir David Brewster in 1821, they are not optically isotropic, and are therefore pseudo-cubic. Goniometric measurements made by G. vom Rath in 1873 led him to refer the crystals to the tetragonal system, the faces o being distinct from those lettered i in the adjoining figure. Optical investigations have since proved the crystals to be still more complex in character, and to consist of several orthorhombic or monoclinic individuals, which are optically biaxial and repeatedly twinned, giving rise to twin-lamellae and to striations on the faces. When the crystals are raised to a temperature of about 500° C. they become optically isotropic, the twin-lamellae and striations disappearing, reappearing, however, when the crystals are again cooled. This pseudo-cubic character of leucite is exactly the same as that of the mineral boracite (q.v.).

The crystals are white (hence the name suggested by A. G. Werner in 1791, from λευκός) or ash-grey in colour, and are usually dull and opaque, but sometimes transparent and glassy; they are brittle and break with a conchoidal fracture. The hardness is 5.5, and the specific gravity 2.5. Enclosures of other minerals, arranged in concentric zones, are frequently present in the crystals. On account of the colour and form of the crystals the mineral was early known as “white garnet.” French authors employ R. J. Haüy’s name “amphigène.”

(L. J. S.)

Leucite Rocks.—Although rocks containing leucite are numerically scarce, many countries such as England being entirely without them, yet they are of wide distribution, occurring in every quarter of the globe. Taken collectively, they exhibit a considerable variety of types and are of great interest petrographically. For the presence of this mineral it is necessary that the silica percentage of the rock should not be high, for leucite never occurs in presence of free quartz. It is most common in lavas of recent and Tertiary age, which have a fair amount of potash, or at any rate have potash equal to or greater than soda; if soda preponderates nepheline occurs rather than leucite. In pre-Tertiary rocks leucite is uncommon, since it readily decomposes and changes to zeolites, analcite and other secondary minerals. Leucite also is rare in plutonic rocks and dike rocks, but leucite-syenite and leucite-tinguaite bear witness to the possibility that it may occur in this manner. The rounded shape of its crystals, their white or grey colour, and rough cleavage, make the presence of leucite easily determinable in many of these rocks by simple inspection, especially when the crystals are large. “Pseudo-leucites” are rounded areas consisting of felspar, nepheline, analcite, &c., which have the shape, composition and sometimes even the crystalline forms of leucite; they are probably pseudomorphs or paramorphs, which have developed from leucite because this mineral, in its isometric crystals, is not stable at ordinary temperatures and may be expected under favourable conditions to undergo spontaneous change into an aggregate of other minerals. Leucite is very often accompanied by nepheline, sodalite or nosean; other minerals which make their appearance with some frequency are melanite, garnet and melilite.

The plutonic leucite-bearing rocks are leucite-syenite and missourite. Of these the former consists of orthoclase, nepheline, sodalite, diopside and aegirine, biotite and sphene. Two occurrences are known, one in Arkansas, the other in Sutherlandshire, Scotland. The Scottish rock has been called borolanite. Both examples show large rounded spots in the hand specimens; they are pseudo-leucites and under the microscope prove to consist of orthoclase, nepheline, sodalite and decomposition products. These have a radiate arrangement externally, but are of irregular structure at their centres; it is interesting to note that in both rocks melanite is an important accessory. The missourites are more basic and consist of leucite, olivine, augite and biotite; the leucite is partly fresh, partly altered to analcite, and the rock has a spotted character recalling that of the leucite-syenites. It has been found only in the Highwood Mountains of Montana.

The leucite-bearing dike-rocks are members of the tinguaite and monchiquite groups. The leucite-tinguaites are usually pale grey or greenish in colour and consist principally of nepheline, alkali-felspar and aegirine. The latter forms bright green moss-like patches and growths of indefinite shape, or in other cases scattered acicular prisms, among the felspars and nephelines of the ground mass. Where leucite occurs, it is always eumorphic in small, rounded, many-sided crystals in the ground mass, or in larger masses which have the same characters as the pseudo-leucites. Biotite occurs in some of these rocks, and melanite also is present. Nepheline appears to decrease in amount as leucite increases. Rocks of this group are known from Rio de Janeiro, Arkansas, Kola (in Finland), Montana and a few other places. In Greenland there are leucite-tinguaites with much arfvedsonite (hornblende) and eudyalite. Wherever they occur they accompany leucite- and nepheline-syenites. Leucite-monchiquites are fine-grained dark rocks consisting of olivine, titaniferous augite and iron oxides, with a glassy ground mass in which small rounded crystals of leucite are scattered. They have been described from Bohemia.

By far the greater number of the rocks which contain leucite are lavas of Tertiary or recent geological age. They are never acid rocks which contain quartz, but felspar is usually present, though there are certain groups of leucite lavas which are non-felspathic. Many of them also contain nepheline, sodalite, hauyne and nosean; the much rarer mineral melilite appears also in some examples. The commonest ferromagnesian mineral is augite (sometimes rich in soda), with olivine in the more basic varieties. Hornblende and biotite occur also, but are less common. Melanite is found in some of the lavas, as in the leucite-syenites.

The rocks in which orthoclase (or sanidine) is present in considerable amount are leucite-trachytes, leucite-phonolites and leucitophyres. Of these groups the two former, which are not sharply distinguished from one another by most authors, are common in the neighbourhood of Rome (L. Bracciano, L. Bolsena). They are of trachytic appearance, containing phenocysts of sanidine, leucite, augite and biotite. Sodalite or hauyne may also be present, but nepheline is typically absent. Rocks of this class occur also in the tuffs of the Phlegraean Fields, near Naples. The leucitophyres are rare rocks which have been described from various parts of the volcanic district of the Rhine (Olbrück, Laacher See, &c.) and from Monte Vulture in Italy. They are rich in leucite, but contain also some sanidine and often much nepheline with hauyne or nosean. Their pyroxene is principally aegirine or aegirine augite; some of them are rich in melanite. Microscopic sections of some of these rocks are of great interest on account of their beauty and the variety of felspathoid minerals which they contain. In Brazil leucitophyres have been found which belong to the Carboniferous period.

Those leucite rocks which contain abundant essential plagioclase felspar are known as leucite-tephrites and leucite-basanites. The former consist mainly of plagioclase, leucite and augite, while the latter contain olivine in addition. The leucite is often present in two sets of crystals, both porphyritic and as an ingredient of the ground mass. It is always idiomorphic with rounded outlines. The felspar ranges from bytownite to oligoclase, being usually a variety of labradorite; orthoclase is scarce. The augite varies a good deal in character, being green, brown or violet, but aegirine (the dark green pleochroic soda-iron-augite) is seldom present. Among the accessory minerals biotite, brown hornblende, hauyne, iron oxides and apatite are the commonest; melanite and nepheline may also occur. The ground mass of these rocks is only occasionally rich in glass. The leucite-tephrites and leucite-basanites of Vesuvius and Somma are familiar examples of this class of rocks. They are black or ashy-grey in colour, often vesicular, and may contain many large grey phenocysts of leucite. Their black augite and yellow green olivine are also easily detected in hand specimens. From Volcanello, Sardinia and Roccamonfina similar rocks are obtained; they occur also in Bohemia, in Java, Celebes, Kilimanjaro (Africa) and near Trebizond in Asia Minor.

Leucite lavas from which felspar is absent are divided into the leucitites and leucite basalts. The latter contain olivine, the former do not. Pyroxene is the usual ferromagnesian mineral, and resembles that of the tephrites and basanites. Sanidine, melanite, hauyne and perofskite are frequent accessory minerals in these rocks, and many of them contain melilite in some quantity. The well-known leucitite of the Capo di Bove, near Rome, is rich in this mineral, which forms irregular plates, yellow in the hand specimen, enclosing many small rounded crystals of leucite. Bracciano and Roccamonfina are other Italian localities for leucitite, and in Java, Montana, Celebes and New South Wales similar rocks occur. The leucite-basalts belong to more basic types and are rich in olivine and augite. They occur in great numbers in the Rhenish volcanic district (Eifel, Laacher See) and in Bohemia, and accompany tephrites or leucitites in Java, Montana, Celebes and Sardinia. The “peperino” of the neighbourhood of Rome is a leucitite tuff.

(J. S. F.)

LEUCTRA, a village of Boeotia in the territory of Thespiae, chiefly noticeable for the battle fought in its neighbourhood in 371 B.C. between the Thebans and the Spartans and their allies. A Peloponnesian army, about 10,000 strong, which had invaded Boeotia from Phocis, was here confronted by a Boeotian levy of perhaps 6000 soldiers under Epaminondas (q.v.). In spite of inferior numbers and the doubtful loyalty of his Boeotian allies, Epaminondas offered battle on the plain before the town. Massing his cavalry and the 50-deep column of Theban infantry on his left wing, he sent forward this body in advance of his centre and right wing. After a cavalry engagement in which the Thebans drove their enemies off the field, the decisive issue was fought out between the Theban and Spartan foot. The latter, though fighting well, could not sustain in their 12-deep formation the heavy impact of their opponents’ column, and were hurled back with a loss of about 2000 men, of whom 700 were Spartan citizens, including the king Cleombrotus. Seeing their right wing beaten, the rest of the Peloponnesians retired and left the enemy in possession of the field. Owing to the arrival of a Thessalian army under Jason of Pherae, whose friendship they did not trust, the Thebans were unable to exploit their victory. But the battle is none the less of great significance in Greek history. It marks a revolution in military tactics, affording the first known instance of a deliberate concentration of attack upon the vital point of the enemy’s line. Its political effects were equally far-reaching, for the loss in material strength and prestige which the Spartans here sustained deprived them for ever of their supremacy in Greece.

Authorities.—Xenophon, Hellenica, vi. 4. 3-15; Diodorus xi. 53-56; Plutarch, Pelopidas, chs. 20-23; Pausanias ix. 13. 2-10; G. B. Grundy, The Topography of the Battle of Plataea (London, 1894), pp. 73-76; H. Delbrück, Geschichte der Kriegskunst (Berlin, 1900), i. 130 ff.

(M. O. B. C.)

LEUK (Fr. Loèche Ville), an ancient and very picturesque little town in the Swiss canton of the Valais. It is built above the right bank of the Rhone, and is about 1 m. from the Leuk-Susten station (15½ m. east of Sion and 17½ m. west of Brieg) on the Simplon railway. In 1900 it had 1592 inhabitants, all but wholly German-speaking and Romanists. About 10½ m. by a winding carriage road N. of Leuk, and near the head of the Dala valley, at a height of 4629 ft. above the sea-level, and overshadowed by the cliffs of the Gemmi Pass (7641 ft.; q.v.) leading over to the Bernese Oberland, are the Baths of Leuk (Leukerbad, or Loèche les Bains). They have only 613 permanent inhabitants, but are much frequented in summer by visitors (largely French and Swiss) attracted by the hot mineral springs. These are 22 in number, and are very abundant. The principal is that of St Laurence, the water of which has a temperature of 124° F. The season lasts from June to September. The village in winter is long deprived of sunshine, and is much exposed to avalanches, by which it was destroyed in 1518, 1719 and 1756, but it is now protected by a strong embankment from a similar catastrophe.

(W. A. B. C.)

LEUTHEN, a village of Prussian Silesia, 10 m. W. of Breslau, memorable as the scene of Frederick the Great’s victory over the Austrians on December 5, 1757. The high road from Breslau to Lüben crosses the marshy Schweidnitz Water at Lissa, and immediately enters the rolling country about Neumarkt. Leuthen itself stands some 4000 paces south of the road, and a similar distance south again lies Sagschütz, while Nypern, on the northern edge of the hill country, is 5000 paces from the road. On Frederick’s approach the Austrians took up a line of battle resting on the two last-named villages. Their whole position was strongly garrisoned and protected by obstacles, and their artillery was numerous though of light calibre. A strong outpost of Saxon cavalry was in Borne to the westward. Frederick had the previous day surprised the Austrian bakeries at Neumarkt, and his Prussians, 33,000 to the enemy’s 82,000, moved towards Borne and Leuthen early on the 5th. The Saxon outpost was rushed at in the morning mist, and, covered by their advanced guard on the heights beyond, the Prussians wheeled to their right. Prince Charles of Lorraine, the Austrian commander-in-chief, on Leuthen Church tower, could make nothing of Frederick’s movements, and the commander of his right wing (Lucchesi) sent him message after message from Nypem and Gocklerwitz asking for help, which was eventually despatched. But the real blow was to fall on the left under Nadasdy. While the Austrian commander was thus wasting time, the Prussians were marching against Nadasdy in two columns, which preserved their distances with an exactitude which has excited the wonder of modern generations of soldiers; at the due place they wheeled into line of battle obliquely to the Austrian front, and in one great échelon,—the cavalry of the right wing foremost, and that of the left “refused,”—Frederick advanced on Sagschütz. Nadasdy, surprised, put a bold face on the matter and made a good defence, but he was speedily routed, and, as the Prussians advanced, battalion after battalion was rolled up towards Leuthen until the Austrians faced almost due south. The fighting in Leuthen itself was furious; the Austrians stood, in places, 100 deep, but the disciplined valour of the Prussians carried the village. For a moment the victory was endangered when Lucchesi came down upon the Prussian left wing from the north, but Driesen’s cavalry, till then refused, charged him in flank and scattered his troopers in wild rout. This stroke ended the battle. The retreat on Breslau became a rout almost comparable to that of Waterloo, and Prince Charles rallied, in Bohemia, barely 37,000 out of his 82,000. Ten thousand Austrians were left on the field, 21,000 taken prisoners (besides 17,000 in Breslau a little later), with 51 colours and 116 cannon. The Prussian loss in all was under 5500. It was not until 1854 that a memorial of this astonishing victory was erected on the battlefield.

See Carlyle, Frederick, bk. xviii. cap. x.; V. Ollech, Friedrich der Grosse von Kolin bis Leuthen (Berlin, 1858); Kutzen, Schlacht bei Leuthen (Breslau, 1851 ); and bibliography under [Seven Years’ War].

LEUTZE, EMANUEL (1816-1868), American artist, was born at Gmünd, Württemberg, on the 24th of May 1816, and as a child was taken by his parents to Philadelphia, where he early displayed talent as an artist. At the age of twenty-five he had earned enough to take him to Düsseldorf for a course of art study at the royal academy. Almost immediately he began the painting of historical subjects, his first work, “Columbus before the Council of Salamanca,” being purchased by the Düsseldorf Art Union. In 1860 he was commissioned by the United States Congress to decorate a stairway in the Capitol at Washington, for which he painted a large composition, “Westward the Star of Empire takes its Way.” His best-known work, popular through engraving, is “Washington crossing the Delaware,” a large canvas containing a score of life-sized figures; it is now owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. He became a member of the National Academy of Design in 1860, and died at Washington, D.C., on the 18th of July 1868.

LEVALLOIS-PERRET, a north-western suburb of Paris, on the right bank of the Seine, 2½ m. from the centre of the city. Pop. (1906) 61,419. It carries on the manufacture of motor-cars and accessories, carriages, groceries, liqueurs, perfumery, soap, &c., and has a port on the Seine.

LEVANT (from the French use of the participle of lever, to rise, for the east, the orient), the name applied widely to the coastlands of the eastern Mediterranean Sea from Greece to Egypt, or, in a more restricted and commoner sense, to the Mediterranean coastlands of Asia Minor and Syria. In the 16th and 17th centuries the term “High Levant” was used of the Far East. The phrase “to levant,” meaning to abscond, especially of one who runs away leaving debts unpaid, particularly of a betting man or gambler, is taken from the Span. levantar, to lift or break up, in such phrases as levantar la casa, to break up a household, or el campo, to break camp.

LEVASSEUR, PIERRE EMILE (1828-  ), French economist, was born in Paris on the 8th of December 1828. Educated in Paris, he began to teach in the lycée at Alençon in 1852, and in 1857 was chosen professor of rhetoric at Besançon. He returned to Paris to become professor at the lycée Saint Louis, and in 1868 he was chosen a member of the academy of moral and political sciences. In 1872 he was appointed professor of geography, history and statistics in the Collège de France, and subsequently became also professor at the Conservatoire des arts et métiers and at the École libre des sciences politiques. Levasseur was one of the founders of the study of commercial geography, and became a member of the Council of Public Instruction, president of the French society of political economy and honorary president of the French geographical society.

His numerous writings include: Histoire des classes ouvrières en France depuis la conquête de Jules César jusqu’à la Révolution (1859); Histoire des classes ouvrières en France depuis la Révolution jusqu’à nos jours (1867); L’Étude et l’enseignement de la géographie (1871); La Population française (1889-1892); L’Agriculture aux États-Unis (1894); L’Enseignement primaire dans les pays civilisés (1897); L’Ouvrier américain (1898); Questions ouvrières et industrielles sous la troisième République (1907); and Histoire des classes ouvrières et de l’industrie en France de 1789 à 1870 (1903-1904). He also published a Grand Atlas de géographie physique et politique (1890-1892).

LEVECHE, the name given to the dry hot sirocco wind in Spain; often incorrectly called the “solano.” The direction of the Leveche is mostly from S.E., S. or S.W., and it occurs along the coast from Cabo de Gata to Cabo de Nao, and even beyond Malaga for a distance of some 10 m. inland.

LEVÉE (from Fr. lever, to raise), an embankment which keeps a river in its channel. A river such as the Mississippi (q.v.), draining a large area, carries a great amount of sediment from its swifter head-streams to the lower ground. As soon as a stream’s velocity is checked, it drops a portion of its load of sediment and spreads an alluvial fan in the lower part of its course. This deposition of material takes place particularly at the sides of the stream where the velocity is least, and the banks are in consequence raised above the main channel, so that the river becomes lifted bodily upwards in its bed, and flows above the level of the surrounding country. In flood-time the muddy water flows over the river’s banks, where its velocity is at once checked as it flows gently down the outer side, causing more material to be deposited there, and a long alluvial ridge, called a natural levée, to be built up on either side of the stream. These ridges may be wide or narrow, but they slope from the stream’s outer banks to the plain below, and in consequence require careful watching, for if the levée is broken by a “crevasse,” the whole body of the river may pour through and flood the country below. In 1890 the Mississippi near New Orleans broke through the Nita crevasse and flowed eastward with a current of 15 m. an hour, spreading destruction in its path. The Hwang-ho river in China is peculiarly liable to these inundations. The word levée is also sometimes used to denote a riverside quay or landing-place.

LEVEE (from the French substantival use of lever, to rise; there is no French substantival use of levée in the English sense), a reception or assembly held by the British sovereign or his representative, in Ireland by the lord-lieutenant, in India by the viceroy, in the forenoon or early afternoon, at which men only are present in distinction from a “drawing-room,” at which ladies also are presented or received. Under the ancien règime in France the lever of the king was regulated, especially under Louis XIV., by elaborate etiquette, and the various divisions of the ceremonial followed the stages of the king’s rising from bed, from which it gained its name. The petit lever began when the king had washed and said his daily offices; to this were admitted the princes of the blood, certain high officers of the household and those to whom a special permit had been granted; then followed the première entrée, to which came the secretaries and other officials and those having the entrée; these were received by the king in his dressing-gown. Finally, at the grand lever, the remainder of the household, the nobles and gentlemen of the court were received; the king by that time was shaved, had changed his linen and was in his wig. In the United States the term “levee” was formerly used of the public receptions held by the president.

LEVELLERS, the name given to an important political party in England during the period of the Civil War and the Commonwealth. The germ of the Levelling movement must be sought for among the Agitators (q.v.), men of strong republican views, and the name Leveller first appears in a letter of the 1st of November 1647, although it was undoubtedly in existence as a nickname before this date (Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 380). This letter refers to these extremists thus: “They have given themselves a new name, viz. Levellers, for they intend to sett all things straight, and rayse a parity and community in the kingdom.”

The Levellers first became prominent in 1647 during the protracted and unsatisfactory negotiations between the king and the parliament, and while the relations between the latter and the army were very strained. Like the Agitators they were mainly found among the soldiers; they were opposed to the existence of kingship, and they feared that Cromwell and the other parliamentary leaders were too complaisant in their dealings with Charles; in fact they doubted their sincerity in this matter. Led by John Lilburne (q.v.) they presented a manifesto, The Case of the Army truly stated, to the commander-in-chief, Lord Fairfax, in October 1647. In this they demanded a dissolution of parliament within a year and substantial changes in the constitution of future parliaments, which were to be regulated by an unalterable “law paramount.” In a second document, The Agreement of the People, they expanded these ideas, which were discussed by Cromwell, Ireton and other officers on the one side, and by John Wildman, Thomas Rainsborough and Edward Sexby for the Levellers on the other. But no settlement was made; some of the Levellers clamoured for the king’s death, and in November 1647, just after his flight from Hampton Court to Carisbrooke, they were responsible for a mutiny which broke out in two regiments at Corkbush Field, near Ware. This, however, was promptly suppressed by Cromwell. During the twelve months which immediately preceded the execution of the king the Levellers conducted a lively agitation in favour of the ideas expressed in the Agreement of the people, and in January 1648 Lilburne was arrested for using seditious language at a meeting in London. But no success attended these and similar efforts, and their only result was that the Levellers regarded Cromwell with still greater suspicion.

Early in 1649, just after the death of the king, the Levellers renewed their activity. They were both numerous and dangerous, and they stood up, says Gardiner, “for an exaggeration of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.” In a pamphlet, England’s New Chains, Lilburne asked for the dissolution of the council of state and for a new and reformed parliament. He followed this up with the Second Part of England’s New Chains; his writings were declared treasonable by parliament, and in March 1649 he and three other leading Levellers, Richard Overton, William Walwyn and Prince were arrested. The discontent which was spreading in the army was fanned when certain regiments were ordered to proceed to Ireland, and in April 1649 there was a meeting in London; but this was quickly put down by Fairfax and Cromwell, and its leader, Robert Lockyer, was shot. Risings at Burford and at Banbury were also suppressed without any serious difficulty, and the trouble with the Levellers was practically over. Gradually they became less prominent, but under the Commonwealth they made frequent advances to the exiled king Charles II., and there was some danger from them early in 1655 when Wildman was arrested and Sexby escaped from England. The distinguishing mark of the Leveller was a sea-green ribbon.

Another but more harmless form of the same movement was the assembling of about fifty men on St George’s Hill near Oatlands in Surrey. In April 1649 these “True Levellers” or “Diggers,” as they were called, took possession of some unoccupied ground which they began to cultivate. They were, however, soon dispersed, and their leaders were arrested and brought before Fairfax, when they took the opportunity of denouncing landowners. It is interesting to note that Lilburne and his colleagues objected to being designated Levellers, as they had no desire to take away “the proper right and title that every man has to what is his own.”

Cromwell attacked the Levellers in his speech to parliament in September 1654 (Carlyle, Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches, Speech II.). He said: “A nobleman, a gentleman, a yeoman; the distinction of these; that is a good interest of the nation, and a great one. The ‘natural’ magistracy of the nation, was it not almost trampled under foot, under despite and contempt, by men of Levelling principles? I beseech you, for the orders of men and ranks of men, did not that Levelling principle tend to the reducing of all to an equality? Did it ‘consciously’ think to do so; or did it ‘only unconsciously’ practise towards that for property and interest? ‘At all events,’ what was the purport of it but to make the tenant as liberal a fortune as the landlord? Which, I think, if obtained, would not have lasted long.”

In 1724 there was a rising against enclosures in Galloway, and a number of men who took part therein were called Levellers or Dyke-breakers (A. Lang, History of Scotland, vol. iv.). The word was also used in Ireland during the 18th century to describe a secret revolutionary society similar to the Whiteboys.

(A. W. H.*)

LEVEN, ALEXANDER LESLIE, 1st Earl of (c. 1580-1661), Scottish general, was the son of George Leslie, captain of Blair-in-Athol, and a member of the family of Leslie of Balquhain. After a scanty education he sought his fortune abroad, and became a soldier, first under Sir Horace Vere in the Low Countries, and afterwards (1605) under Charles IX. and Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, in whose service he remained for many years and fought in many campaigns with honour. In 1626 Leslie had risen by merit to the rank of lieutenant-general, and had been knighted by Gustavus. In 1628 he distinguished himself by his constancy and energy in the defence of Stralsund against Wallenstein, and in 1630 seized the island of Rügen in the name of the king of Sweden. In the same year he returned to Scotland to assist in recruiting and organizing the corps of Scottish volunteers which James, 3rd marquis of Hamilton, brought over to Gustavus in 1631. Leslie received a severe wound in the following winter, but was able nevertheless to be present at Gustavus’s last battle at Lützen. Like many others of the soldiers of fortune who served under Gustavus, Leslie cherished his old commander’s memory to the day of his death, and he kept with particular care a jewel and miniature presented to him by the king. He continued as a general officer in the Swedish army for some years, was promoted in 1636 to the rank of field marshal, and continued in the field until 1638, when events recalled him to his own country. He had married long before this—in 1637 his eldest son was made a colonel in the Swedish army—and he had managed to keep in touch with Scottish affairs.

As the foremost Scottish soldier of his day he was naturally nominated to command the Scottish army in the impending war with England, a post which, resigning his Swedish command, he accepted with a glad heart, for he was an ardent Covenanter and had caused “a great number of our commanders in Germany subscryve our covenant” (Baillie’s Letters). On leaving Sweden he brought back his arrears of pay in the form of cannon and muskets for his new army. For some months he busied himself with the organization and training of the new levies, and with inducing Scottish officers abroad to do their duty to their country by returning to lead them. Diminutive in size and somewhat deformed in person as he was, his reputation and his shrewdness and simple tact, combined with the respect for his office of lord general that he enforced on all ranks, brought even the unruly nobles to subordination. He had by now amassed a considerable fortune and was able to live in a manner befitting a commander-in-chief, even when in the field. One of his first exploits was to take the castle of Edinburgh by surprise, without the loss of a man. He commanded the Scottish army at Dunse Law in May of that year, and in 1640 he invaded England, and defeated the king’s troops at Newburn on the Tyne, which gave him possession of Newcastle and of the open country as far as the Tees. At the treaty with the king at Ripon, Leslie was one of the commissioners of the Scottish parliament, and when Charles visited Edinburgh Leslie entertained him magnificently and accompanied him when he drove through the streets. His affirmations of loyalty to the crown, which later events caused to be remembered against him, were sincere enough, but the complicated politics of the time made it difficult for Leslie, the lord general of the Scottish army, to maintain a perfectly consistent attitude. However, his influence was exercised chiefly to put an end to, even to hush up, the troubles, and he is found, now giving a private warning to plotters against the king to enable them to escape, now guarding the Scottish parliament against a royalist coup d’état, and now securing for an old comrade of the German wars, Patrick Ruthven, Lord Ettrick, indemnity for having held Edinburgh Castle for the king against the parliament. Charles created him, by patent dated Holyrood, October 11, 1641, earl of Leven and Lord Balgonie, and made him captain of Edinburgh Castle and a privy councillor. The parliament recognized his services by a grant, and, on his resigning the lord generalship, appointed him commander of the permanent forces. A little later, Leven, who was a member of the committee of the estates which exercised executive powers during the recess of parliament, used his great influence in support of a proposal to raise a Scottish army to help the elector palatine in Germany, but the Ulster massacres gave this force, when raised, a fresh direction and Leven himself accompanied it to Ireland as lord general. He did not remain there long, for the Great Rebellion (q.v.) had begun in England, and negotiations were opened between the English and the Scottish parliaments for mutual armed assistance. Leven accepted the command of the new forces raised for the invasion of England, and was in consequence freely accused of having broken his personal oath to Charles, but he could hardly have acted otherwise than he did, and at that time, and so far as the Scots were concerned, to the end of the struggle, the parliaments were in arms, professedly and to some extent actually, to rescue his majesty from the influence of evil counsellors.

The military operations preceding Marston Moor are described under [Great Rebellion], and the battle itself under its own heading. Leven’s great reputation, wisdom and tact made him an ideal commander for the allied army formed by the junction of Leven’s, Fairfax’s and Manchester’s in Yorkshire. After the battle the allied forces separated, Leven bringing the siege of Newcastle to an end by storming it. In 1645 the Scots were less successful, though their operations ranged from Westmorland to Hereford, and Leven himself had many administrative and political difficulties to contend with. These difficulties became more pronounced when in 1646 Charles took refuge with the Scottish army. The king remained with Leven until he was handed over to the English parliament in 1647, and Leven constantly urged him to take the covenant and to make peace. Presbyterians and Independents had now parted, and with no more concession than the guarantee of the covenant the Scottish and English Presbyterians were ready to lay down their arms, or to turn them against the “sectaries.” Leven was now old and infirm, and though retained as nominal commander-in-chief saw no further active service. He acted with Argyll and the “godly” party in the discussions preceding the second invasion of England, and remained at his post as long as possible in the hope of preventing the Scots becoming merely a royalist instrument for the conquest of the English Independents. But be was induced in the end to resign, though he was appointed lord general of all new forces that might be raised for the defence of Scotland. The occasion soon came, for Cromwell annihilated the Scottish invaders at Preston and Uttoxeter, and thereupon Argyll assumed political and Leven military control at Edinburgh. But he was now over seventy years of age, and willingly resigned the effective command to his subordinate David Leslie (see [Newark, Lord]), in whom he had entire confidence. After the execution of Charles I. the war broke out afresh, and this time the “godly” party acted with the royalists. In the new war, and in the disastrous campaign of Dunbar, Leven took but a nominal part, though attempts were afterwards made to hold him responsible. But once more the parliament refused to accept his resignation. Leven at last fell into the hands of a party of English dragoons in August 1651, and with some others was sent to London. He remained incarcerated in the Tower for some time, till released on finding securities for £20,000, upon which he retired to his residence in Northumberland. While on a visit to London he was again arrested, for a technical breach of his engagement, but by the intercession of the queen of Sweden he obtained his liberty. He was freed from his engagements in 1654, and retired to his seat at Balgonie in Fifeshire, where he died at an advanced age in 1661. He acquired considerable landed property, particularly Inchmartin in the Carse of Gowrie, which he called Inchleslie.

See [Leven and Melville, Earls of], below.

LEVEN, a police burgh of Fifeshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 5577. It is situated on the Firth of Forth, at the mouth of the Leven, 5¾ m. E. by N. of Thornton Junction by the North British railway. The public buildings include the town hall, public hall and people’s institute, in the grounds of which the old town cross has been erected. The industries are numerous, comprising flax-spinning, brewing, linen-weaving, paper-making, seed-crushing and rope-making, besides salt-works, a foundry, saw-mill and brick-works. The wet dock is not much used, owing to the constant accumulation of sand. The golf-links extending for 2 m. to Lundin are among the best in Scotland. Two miles N.E. is Lundin Mill and Drumochie, usually called Lundin (pop. 570), at the mouth of Kiel Burn, with a station on the Links. The three famous standing stones are supposed to be either of “Druidical” origin or to mark the site of a battle with the Danes. In the vicinity are the remains of an old house of the Lundins, dating from the reign of David II. To the N.W. of Leven lies the parish of Kennoway (pop. 870). In Captain Seton’s house, which still stands in the village of Kennoway, Archbishop Sharp spent the night before his assassination (1679). One mile east of Lundin lies Largo (pop. of parish 2046), consisting of Upper Largo, or Kirkton of Largo, and Lower Largo. The public buildings include Simpson institute, with a public hall, library, reading-room, bowling-green and lawn-tennis court, and John Wood’s hospital, founded in 1659 for poor persons bearing his name. A statue of Alexander Selkirk, or Selcraig (1676-1721), the prototype of “Robinson Crusoe,” who was born here, was erected in 1886. Sir John Leslie (1766-1832), the natural philosopher, was also a native. Largo claims two famous sailors, Admiral Sir Philip Durham (1763-1845), commander-in-chief at Portsmouth from 1836 to 1839, and Sir Andrew Wood (d. 1515), the trusted servant of James III. and James IV., who sailed the “Great Michael,” the largest ship of its time. When he was past active service he had a canal cut from his house to the parish church, to which he was rowed every Sunday in an eight-oared barge. Largo House was granted to him by James III., and the tower of the original structure still exists. About 1½ m. from the coast rises the height of Largo Law (948 ft.). Kellie Law lies some 5½ m. to the east.

LEVEN, LOCH, a lake of Kinross-shire, Scotland. It has an oval shape, the longer axis running from N.W. to S.E., has a length of 32⁄3 m., and a breadth of 22⁄3 m. and is situated near the south and east boundaries of the shire. It lies at a height of 350 ft. above the sea. The mean depth is less than 15 ft., with a maximum of 83 ft., the lake being thus one of the shallowest in Scotland. Reclamation works carried on from 1826 to 1836 reduced its area by one quarter, but it still possesses a surface area of 5½ sq. m. It drains the county and is itself drained by the Leven. It is famous for the Loch Leven trout (Salmo levenensis, considered by some a variety of S. trutta), which are remarkable for size and quality. The fishings are controlled by the Loch Leven Angling Association, which organizes competitions attracting anglers from far and near. The loch contains seven islands. Upon St Serf’s, the largest, which commemorates the patron saint of Fifeshire, are the ruins of the Priory of Portmoak—so named from St Moak, the first abbot—the oldest Culdee establishment in Scotland. Some time before 961 it was made over to the bishop of St Andrews, and shortly after 1144 a body of canons regular was established on it in connexion with the priory of canons regular founded in that year at St Andrews. The second largest island, Castle Island, possesses remains of even greater interest. The first stronghold is supposed to have been erected by Congal, son of Dongart, king of the Picts. The present castle dates from the 13th century and was occasionally used as a royal residence. It is said to have been in the hands of the English for a time, from whom it was delivered by Wallace. It successfully withstood Edward Baliol’s siege in 1335, and was granted by Robert II. to Sir William Douglas of Lugton. It became the prison at various periods of Robert II.; of Alexander Stuart, earl of Buchan, “the Wolf of Badenoch”; Archibald, earl of Douglas (1429); Patrick Graham, archbishop of St Andrews (who died, still in bondage, on St Serf’s Island in 1478), and of Mary, queen of Scots. The queen had visited it more than once before her detention, and had had a presence chamber built in it. Conveyed hither in June 1567 after her surrender at Carberry, she signed her abdication within its walls on the 4th of July and effected her escape on the 2nd of May 1568. The keys of the castle, which were thrown into the loch during her flight, were found and are preserved at Dalmahoy in Midlothian. Support of Mary’s cause had involved Thomas Percy, 7th earl of Northumberland (b. 1528). He too was lodged in the castle in 1569, and after three years’ imprisonment was handed over to the English, by whom he was beheaded at York in 1572. The proverb that “Those never got luck who came to Loch Leven” sums up the history of the castle. The causeway connecting the isle with the mainland was long submerged too deeply for use, but the reclamation operations already referred to almost brought it into view again.

LEVEN AND MELVILLE, EARLS OF. The family of Melville which now holds these two earldoms is descended from Sir John Melville of Raith in Fifeshire. Sir John, who was a member of the reforming party in Scotland, was put to death for high treason on the 13th of December 1548; he left with other children a son Robert (1527-1621), who in 1616 was created a lord of parliament as Lord Melville of Monymaill. Before his elevation to the Scottish peerage Melville had been a stout partisan of Mary, queen of Scots, whom he represented at the English court, and he had filled several important offices in Scotland under her son James VI. The fourth holder of the lordship of Melville was George (c. 1634-1707), a son of John, the 3rd lord (d. 1643), and a descendant of Sir John Melville. Implicated in the Rye House plot against Charles II., George took refuge in the Netherlands in 1683, but he returned to England after the revolution of 1688 and was appointed secretary for Scotland by William III. in 1689, being created earl of Melville in the following year. He was made president of the Scottish privy council in 1696, but he was deprived of his office when Anne became queen in 1702, and he died on the 20th of May 1707. His son David, 2nd earl of Melville (1660-1728), fled to Holland with his father in 1683; after serving in the army of the elector of Brandenburg he accompanied William of Orange to England in 1688. At the head of a regiment raised by himself he fought for William at Killiecrankie and elsewhere, and as commander-in-chief of the troops in Scotland he dealt promptly and effectively with the attempted Jacobite rising of 1708. In 1712, however, his office was taken from him and he died on the 6th of June 1728.

Alexander Leslie, 1st earl of Leven (q.v.), was succeeded in his earldom by his grandson Alexander, who died without sons in July 1664. The younger Alexander’s two daughters were then in turn countesses of Leven in their own right; and after the death of the second of these two ladies in 1676 a dispute arose over the succession to the earldom between John Leslie, earl (afterwards duke) of Rothes, and David Melville, 2nd earl of Melville, mentioned above. In 1681, however, Rothes died, and Melville, who was a great-grandson of the 1st earl of Leven, assumed the title, calling himself earl of Leven and Melville after he succeeded his father as earl of Melville in May 1707. Since 1805 the family has borne the name of Leslie-Melville. In 1906 John David Leslie-Melville (b. 1886) became 12th earl of Leven and 11th earl of Melville.

See Sir W. Fraser, The Melvilles, Earls of Melville, and the Leslies, Earls of Leven (1890); and the Leven and Melville Papers, edited by the Hon. W. H. Leslie-Melville for the Bannatyne Club (1843).

LEVER, CHARLES JAMES (1806-1872), Irish novelist, second son of James Lever, a Dublin architect and builder, was born in the Irish capital on the 31st of August 1806. His descent was purely English. He was educated in private schools, where he wore a ring, smoked, read novels, was a ringleader in every breach of discipline, and behaved generally like a boy destined for the navy in one of Captain Marryat’s novels. His escapades at Trinity College, Dublin (1823-1828), whence he took the degree of M.B. in 1831, form the basis of that vast cellarage of anecdote from which all the best vintages in his novels are derived. The inimitable Frank Webber in Charles O’Malley (spiritual ancestor of Foker and Mr Bouncer) was a college friend, Robert Boyle, later on an Irish parson. Lever and Boyle sang ballads of their own composing in the streets of Dublin, after the manner of Fergusson or Goldsmith, filled their caps with coppers and played many other pranks embellished in the pages of O’Malley, Con Cregan and Lord Kilgobbin. Before seriously embarking upon the medical studies for which he was designed, Lever visited Canada as an unqualified surgeon on an emigrant ship, and has drawn upon some of his experiences in Con Cregan, Arthur O’Leary and Roland Cashel. Arrived in Canada he plunged into the backwoods, was affiliated to a tribe of Indians and had to escape at the risk of his life, like his own Bagenal Daly.

Back in Europe, he travelled in the guise of a student from Göttingen to Weimar (where he saw Goethe), thence to Vienna; he loved the German student life with its beer, its fighting and its fun, and several of his merry songs, such as “The Pope he loved a merry life” (greatly envied by Titmarsh), are on Student-lied models. His medical degree admitted him to an appointment from the Board of Health in Co. Clare and then as dispensary doctor at Port Stewart, but the liveliness of his diversions as a country doctor seems to have prejudiced the authorities against him. In 1833 he married his first love, Catherine Baker, and in February 1837, after varied experiences, he began running The Confessions of Harry Lorrequer through the pages of the recently established Dublin University Magazine. During the previous seven years the popular taste had declared strongly in favour of the service novel as exemplified by Frank Mildmay, Tom Cringle, The Subaltern, Cyril Thornton, Stories of Waterloo, Ben Brace and The Bivouac; and Lever himself had met William Hamilton Maxwell, the titular founder of the genre. Before Harry Lorrequer appeared in volume form (1839), Lever had settled on the strength of a slight diplomatic connexion as a fashionable physician in Brussels (16, Rue Ducale). Lorrequer was merely a string of Irish and other stories good, bad and indifferent, but mostly rollicking, and Lever, who strung together his anecdotes late at night after the serious business of the day was done, was astonished at its success. “If this sort of thing amuses them, I can go on for ever.” Brussels was indeed a superb place for the observation of half-pay officers, such as Major Monsoon (Commissioner Meade), Captain Bubbleton and the like, who terrorized the tavernes of the place with their endless peninsular stories, and of English society a little damaged, which it became the specialty of Lever to depict. He sketched with a free hand, wrote, as he lived, from hand to mouth, and the chief difficulty he experienced was that of getting rid of his characters who “hung about him like those tiresome people who never can make up their minds to bid you good night.” Lever had never taken part in a battle himself, but his next three books, Charles O’Malley (1841), Jack Hinton and Tom Burke of Ours (1843), written under the spur of the writer’s chronic extravagance, contain some splendid military writing and some of the most animated battle-pieces on record. In pages of O’Malley and Tom Burke Lever anticipates not a few of the best effects of Marbot, Thiébaut, Lejeune, Griois, Seruzier, Burgoyne and the like. His account of the Douro need hardly fear comparison, it has been said, with Napier’s. Condemned by the critics, Lever had completely won the general reader from the Iron Duke himself downwards.

In 1842 he returned to Dublin to edit the Dublin University Magazine, and gathered round him a typical coterie of Irish wits (including one or two hornets) such as the O’Sullivans, Archer Butler, W. Carleton, Sir William Wilde, Canon Hayman, D. F. McCarthy, McGlashan, Dr Kenealy and many others. In June 1842 he welcomed at Templeogue, 4 m. south-west of Dublin, the author of the Snob Papers on his Irish tour (the Sketch Book was, later, dedicated to Lever). Thackeray recognized the fund of Irish sadness beneath the surface merriment. “The author’s character is not humour but sentiment. The spirits are mostly artificial, the fond is sadness, as appears to me to be that of most Irish writing and people.” The Waterloo episode in Vanity Fair was in part an outcome of the talk between the two novelists. But the “Galway pace,” the display he found it necessary to maintain at Templeogue, the stable full of horses, the cards, the friends to entertain, the quarrels to compose and the enormous rapidity with which he had to complete Tom Burke, The O’Donoghue and Arthur O’Leary (1845), made his native land an impossible place for Lever to continue in. Templeogue would soon have proved another Abbotsford. Thackeray suggested London. But Lever required a new field of literary observation and anecdote. His sève originel was exhausted and he decided to renew it on the continent. In 1845 he resigned his editorship and went back to Brussels, whence he started upon an unlimited tour of central Europe in a family coach. Now and again he halted for a few months, and entertained to the limit of his resources in some ducal castle or other which he hired for an off season. Thus at Riedenburg, near Bregenz, in August 1846, he entertained Charles Dickens and his wife and other well-known people. Like his own Daltons or Dodd Family Abroad he travelled continentally, from Carlsruhe to Como, from Como to Florence, from Florence to the Baths of Lucca and so on, and his letters home are the litany of the literary remittance man, his ambition now limited to driving a pair of novels abreast without a diminution of his standard price for serial work (“twenty pounds a sheet”). In the Knight of Gwynne, a story of the Union (1847), Con Cregan (1849), Roland Cashel (1850) and Maurice Tiernay (1852) we still have traces of his old manner; but he was beginning to lose his original joy in composition. His fond of sadness began to cloud the animal joyousness of his temperament. Formerly he had written for the happy world which is young and curly and merry; now he grew fat and bald and grave. “After 38 or so what has life to offer but one universal declension. Let the crew pump as hard as they like, the leak gains every hour.” But, depressed in spirit as he was, his wit was unextinguished; he was still the delight of the salons with his stories, and in 1867, after a few years’ experience of a similar kind at Spezia, he was cheered by a letter from Lord Derby offering him the more lucrative consulship of Trieste. “Here is six hundred a year for doing nothing, and you are just the man to do it.” The six hundred could not atone to Lever for the lassitude of prolonged exile. Trieste, at first “all that I could desire,” became with characteristic abruptness “detestable and damnable.” “Nothing to eat, nothing to drink, no one to speak to.” “Of all the dreary places it has been my lot to sojourn in this is the worst” (some references to Trieste will be found in That Boy of Norcott’s, 1869). He could never be alone and was almost morbidly dependent upon literary encouragement. Fortunately, like Scott, he had unscrupulous friends who assured him that his last efforts were his best. They include The Fortunes of Glencore (1857), Tony Butler (1865), Luttrell of Arran (1865), Sir Brooke Fosbrooke (1866), Lord Kilgobbin (1872) and the table-talk of Cornelius O’Dowd, originally contributed to Blackwood. His depression, partly due to incipient heart disease, partly to the growing conviction that he was the victim of literary and critical conspiracy, was confirmed by the death of his wife (23rd April 1870), to whom he was tenderly attached. He visited Ireland in the following year and seemed alternately in very high and very low spirits. Death had already given him one or two runaway knocks, and, after his return to Trieste, he failed gradually, dying suddenly, however, and almost painlessly, from failure of the heart’s action on the 1st of June 1872. His daughters, one of whom, Sydney, is believed to have been the real author of The Rent in a Cloud (1869), were well provided for.

Trollope praised Lever’s novels highly when he said that they were just like his conversation. He was a born raconteur, and had in perfection that easy flow of light description which without tedium or hurry leads up to the point of the good stories of which in earlier days his supply seemed inexhaustible. With little respect for unity of action or conventional novel structure, his brightest books, such as Lorrequer, O’Malley and Tom Burke, are in fact little more than recitals of scenes in the life of a particular “hero,” unconnected by any continuous intrigue. The type of character he depicted is for the most part elementary. His women are mostly rouées, romps or Xanthippes; his heroes have too much of the Pickle temper about them and fall an easy prey to the serious attacks of Poe or to the more playful gibes of Thackeray in Phil Fogarty or Bret Harte in Terence Deuville. This last is a perfect bit of burlesque. Terence exchanges nineteen shots with the Hon. Captain Henry Somerset in the glen. “At each fire I shot away a button from his uniform. As my last bullet shot off the last button from his sleeve, I remarked quietly, ‘You seem now, my lord, to be almost as ragged as the gentry you sneered at,’ and rode haughtily away.” And yet these careless sketches contain such haunting creations as Frank Webber, Major Monsoon and Micky Free, “the Sam Weller of Ireland.” Falstaff is alone in the literature of the world; but if ever there came a later Falstaff, Monsoon was the man. As for Baby Blake, is she not an Irish Di Vernon? The critics may praise Lever’s thoughtful and careful later novels as they will, but Charles O’Malley will always be the pattern of a military romance.

Superior, it is sometimes claimed, in construction and style, the later books approximate it may be thought to the good ordinary novel of commerce, but they lack the extraordinary qualities, the incommunicable “go” of the early books—the élan of Lever’s untamed youth. Artless and almost formless these productions may be, but they represent to us, as very few other books can, that pathetic ejaculation of Lever’s own—“Give us back the wild freshness of the morning!” We know the novelist’s teachers, Maxwell, Napier, the old-fashioned compilation known as Victoires, conquêtes et désastres des Français (1835), and the old buffers at Brussels who emptied the room by uttering the word “Badajos.” But where else shall we find the equals of the military scenes in O’Malley and Tom Burke, or the military episodes in Jack Hinton, Arthur O’Leary (the story of Aubuisson) or Maurice Tiernay (nothing he ever did is finer than the chapter introducing “A remnant of Fontenoy”)? It is here that his true genius lies, even more than in his talent for conviviality and fun, which makes an early copy of an early Lever (with Phiz’s illustrations) seem literally to exhale an atmosphere of past and present entertainment. It is here that he is a true romancist, not for boys only, but also for men.

Lever’s lack of artistry and of sympathy with the deeper traits of the Irish character have been stumbling-blocks to his reputation among the critics. Except to some extent in The Martins of Cro’ Martin (1856) it may be admitted that his portraits of Irish are drawn too exclusively from the type depicted in Sir Jonah Barrington’s Memoirs and already well known on the English stage. He certainly had no deliberate intention of “lowering the national character.” Quite the reverse. Yet his posthumous reputation seems to have suffered in consequence, in spite of all his Gallic sympathies and not unsuccessful endeavours to apotheosize the “Irish Brigade.”

The chief authorities are the Life, by W. J. Fitzpatrick (1879), and the Letters, ed. in 2 vols. by Edmund Downey (1906), neither of which, however, enables the reader to penetrate below the surface. See also Dr Garnett in Dict. Nat. Biog.; Dublin Univ. Mag. (1880), 465 and 570; Anthony Trollope’s Autobiography; Blackwood (August 1862); Fortnightly Review, vol. xxxii.; Andrew Lang’s Essays in Little (1892); Henley’s Views and Reviews; Hugh Walker’s Literature of the Victorian Era (1910); The Bookman Hist. of English Literature (1906), p. 467; Bookman (June 1906; portraits). A library edition of the novels in 37 vols. appeared 1897-1899 under the superintendence of Lever’s daughter, Julie Kate Neville.

(T. Se.)

LEVER (through O. Fr. leveour, levere, mod. levier, from Lat. levare, to lift, raise), a mechanical device for raising bodies; the “simple” lever consists of a rigid bar free to move about a fixed point, termed the fulcrum; one point of the rod is connected to the piece to be moved, and power is applied at another point (see [Mechanics]).

LEVERRIER, URBAIN JEAN JOSEPH (1811-1877), French astronomer, was born at St Lô in Normandy on the 11th of March 1811. His father, who held a small post under government, made great efforts to send him to Paris, where a brilliant examination gained him, in 1831, admittance to the École Polytechnique. The distinction of his career there was rewarded with a free choice amongst the departments of the public service open to pupils of the school. He selected the administration of tobaccos, addressing himself especially to chemical researches under the guidance of Gay-Lussac, and gave striking proof of ability in two papers on the combinations of phosphorus with hydrogen and oxygen, published in Annales de Chimie et de Physique (1835 and 1837). His astronomical vocation, like that of Kepler, came from without. The place of teacher of that science at the École Polytechnique falling vacant in 1837, it was offered to and accepted by Leverrier, who, “docile to circumstance,” instantly abandoned chemistry, and directed the whole of his powers to celestial mechanics. The first fruits of his labours were contained in two memoirs presented to the Academy, September 16 and October 14, 1839. Pursuing the investigations of Laplace, he demonstrated with greater rigour the stability of the solar system, and calculated the limits within which the eccentricities and inclinations of the planetary orbits vary. This remarkable début excited much attention, and, on the recommendation of François Arago, he took in hand the theory of Mercury, producing, in 1843, vastly improved tables of that planet. The perturbations of the comets discovered, the one by H. A. E. A. Faye in November 1843, the other by Francesco de Vico a year later, were minutely investigated by Leverrier, with the result of disproving the supposed identity of the first with Lexell’s lost comet of 1770, and of the other with Tycho’s of 1585. On the other hand, he made it appear all but certain that Vico’s comet was the same with one seen by Philippe de Lahire in 1678. Recalled once more, by the summons of Arago, to planetary studies, he was this time invited to turn his attention to Uranus. Step by step, with sagacious and patient accuracy, he advanced to the great discovery which has immortalized his name. Carefully sifting all the known causes of disturbance, he showed that one previously unknown had to be reckoned with, and on the 23rd of September 1846 the planet Neptune was discerned by J. G. Galle (d. 1910) at Berlin, within one degree of the spot Leverrier had indicated (see [Neptune]).

This memorable achievement was greeted with an outburst of public enthusiasm. Academies vied with each other in enrolling Leverrier among their members; the Royal Society awarded him the Copley medal; the king of Denmark sent him the order of the Dannebrog; he was named officer in the Legion of Honour, and preceptor to the comte de Paris; a chair of astronomy was created for his benefit at the Faculty of Sciences; he was appointed adjunct astronomer to the Bureau of Longitudes. Returned to the Legislative Assembly in 1849 by his native department of Manche, he voted with the anti-republican party, but devoted his principal attention to subjects connected with science and education. After the coup d’état of 1851 he became a senator and inspector-general of superior instruction, sat upon the commission for the reform of the École Polytechnique (1854), and, on the 30th of January 1854, succeeded Arago as director of the Paris observatory. His official work in the latter capacity would alone have strained the energies of an ordinary man. The institution had fallen into a state of lamentable inefficiency. Leverrier placed it on a totally new footing, freed it from the control of the Bureau of Longitudes, and raised it to its due rank among the observatories of Europe. He did not escape the common lot of reformers. His uncompromising measures and unconciliatory manner of enforcing them raised a storm only appeased by his removal on the 5th of February 1870. On the death of his successor Charles Eugène Delaunay (1816-1872), he was reinstated by Thiers, but with authority restricted by the supervision of a council. In the midst of these disquietudes, he executed a task of gigantic proportions. This was nothing less than the complete revision cf the planetary theories, followed by a laborious comparison of results with the most authentic observations, and the construction of tables representing the movements thus corrected. It required all his indomitable perseverance to carry through a purpose which failing health continually menaced with frustration. He had, however, the happiness of living long enough to perfect his work. Three weeks after he had affixed his signature to the printed sheets of the theory of Neptune he died at Paris on the 23rd of September 1877. By his marriage with Mademoiselle Choquet, who survived him little more than a month, he left a son and daughter.

The discovery with which Leverrier’s name is popularly identified was only an incident in his career. The elaboration of the scheme of the heavens traced out by P. S. Laplace in the Mécanique céleste was its larger aim, for the accomplishment of which forty years of unremitting industry barely sufficed. He nevertheless found time to organize the meteorological service in France and to promote the present system of international weather-warnings. He founded the Association Scientifique, and was active in introducing a practical scientific element into public education. His inference of the existence, between Mercury and the sun, of an appreciable quantity of circulating matter (Comptes rendus, 1859, ii. 379), has not yet been verified. He was twice, in 1868 and 1876, the recipient of the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, London, and the university of Cambridge conferred upon him, in 1875, the honorary degree of LL.D. His planetary and solar tables were adopted by the Nautical Almanac, as well as by the Connaissance des temps.

The Annales de l’Observatoire de Paris, the publication of which was set on foot by Leverrier, contain, in vols. i.-vi. (Mémoires) (1855-1861) and x.-xiv. (1874-1877), his theories and tables of the several planets. In vol. i. will be found, besides his masterly report on the observatory, a general theory of secular inequalities, in which the development of the disturbing function was carried further than had previously been attempted.

The memoirs and papers communicated by him to the Academy were summarized in Comptes rendus (1839-1876), and the more important published in full either separately or in the Conn. des temps and the Journal des mathématiques. That entitled Développemens sur différents points de la théorie des perturbations (1841), was translated in part xviii. of Taylor’s Scientific Memoirs. For his scientific work see Professor Adams’s address, Monthly Notices, xxxvi. 232, and F. Tisserand’s review in Ann. de l’Obs. tom. xv. (1880); for a notice of his life, J. Bertrand’s “Éloge historique,” Mém. de l’Ac. des Sciences, tom, xli., 2me série.

(A. M. C.)

LEVERTIN, OSCAR IVAN (1862-1906), Swedish poet and man of letters, was born of Jewish parents at Norrköping on the 17th of July 1862. He received his doctorate in letters at Upsala in 1887, and was subsequently docent at Upsala, and later professor of literature at Stockholm. Enforced sojourns in southern Europe on account of health familiarized him with foreign languages. He began by being an extreme follower of the naturalist school, but on his return in 1890 from a two years’ residence in Davos he wrote, in collaboration with the poet C. G. Verner von Heidenstam (b. 1859), a novel, Pepitas bröllop (1890), which was a direct attack on naturalism. His later volumes of short stories, Rococonoveller and Sista noveller, are fine examples of modern Swedish fiction. The lyrical beauty of his poems, Legender och visor (1891), placed him at the head of the romantic reaction in Sweden. In his poems entitled Nya Dikter (1894) he drew his material partly from medieval sources, and a third volume of poetry in 1902 sustained his reputation. His last poetical work (1905) was Kung Salomo och Morolf, poems founded on an eastern legend. As a critic he first attracted attention by his books on the Gustavian age of Swedish letters: Teater och drama under Gustaf III. (1889), &c. He was an active collaborator in the review Ord och Bild. He died in 1906, at a time when he was engaged on his Linné, posthumously published, a fragment of a great work on Linnaeus.

LEVI, HERMANN (1839-1900), German orchestral conductor, was born at Giessen on the 7th of November 1839, and was the son of a Jewish rabbi. He was educated at Giessen and Mannheim, and came under Vincenz Lachner’s notice. From 1855 to 1858 Levi studied at the Leipzig conservatorium, and after a series of travels which took him to Paris, he obtained his first post as music director at Saarbrücken, which post he exchanged for that at Mannheim in 1861. From 1862 to 1864 he was chief conductor of the German opera in Rotterdam, then till 1872 at Carlsruhe, when he went to Munich, a post he held until 1896, when ill-health compelled him to resign. Levi’s name is indissolubly connected with the increased public appreciation of Wagner’s music. He conducted the first performance of Parsifal at Bayreuth in 1882, and was connected with the musical life of that place during the remainder of his career. He visited London in 1895.

LEVI, LEONE (1821-1888), English jurist and statistician, was born of Jewish parents on the 6th of June 1821, at Ancona, Italy. After receiving an early training in a business house in his native town, he went to Liverpool in 1844, became naturalized, and changing his faith, joined the Presbyterian church. Perceiving the necessity, in view of the unsystematic condition of the English law on the subject, for the establishment of chambers and tribunals of commerce in England, he warmly advocated their institution in numerous pamphlets; and as a result of his labours the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, of which Levi was made secretary, was founded in 1849. In 1850 Levi published his Commercial Law of the World, being an exhaustive and comparative treatise upon the laws and codes of mercantile countries. Appointed in 1852 to the chair of commercial law in King’s College, London, he proved himself a highly competent and popular instructor, and his evening classes were a most successful innovation. He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1859, and received from the university of Tübingen the degree of doctor of political science. His chief work—History of British Commerce and of the Economic Progress of the British Nation, 1763-1870, is perhaps a rather too partisan account of British economic development, being a eulogy upon the blessings of Free Trade, but its value as a work of reference cannot be gainsaid. Among his other works are: Work and Pay; Wages and Earnings of the Working Classes; International Law, with Materials for a Code. He died on the 7th of May 1888.

LEVIATHAN, the Hebrew name (livyāthān), occurring in the poetical books of the Bible, of a gigantic animal, apparently the sea or water equivalent of behemoth (q.v.), the king of the animals of the dry land. In Job xli. 15 it would seem to represent the crocodile, in Isaiah xxvii. 1 it is a crooked and piercing serpent, the dragon of the sea; cf. Psalms civ. 26. The etymology of the word is uncertain, but it has been taken to be connected with a root meaning “to twist.” Apart from its scriptural usage, the word is applied to any gigantic marine animal such as the whale, and hence, figuratively, of very large ships, and also of persons of outstanding strength, power, wealth or influence. Hobbes adopted the name as the title of his principal work, applying it to “the multitude so united in one person ... called a commonwealth.... This is the generation of that Leviathan, or rather ... of that mortal God, to which we owe under the immortal God, our peace and defence.”

LEVIRATE (Lat. levir, a husband’s brother), a custom, sometimes even a law, compelling a dead man’s brother to marry his widow. It seems to have been widespread in primitive times, and is common to-day. Of the origin and primitive purpose of the levirate marriage various explanations have been put forward:—

1. It has been urged that the custom was primarily based on the law of inheritance; a wife, regarded as a chattel, being inherited like other possessions. The social advantage of providing one who should maintain the widow doubtless aided the spread of the custom. The abandonment of a woman and her children in the nomadic stage of civilization would be equivalent to death for them; hence with some peoples the levirate became a duty rather than a right. Among the Thlinkets, for example, when a man dies, his brother or his sister’s son must marry the widow, a failure in this duty occasioning feuds. The obligation on a man to provide for his sister-in-law is analogous to other duties devolving on kinsfolk, such as the vendetta.

2. J. F. McLennan, however, would assume the levirate to be a relic of polyandry, and in his argument lays much stress on the fact that it is the dead man’s brother who inherits the widow. But among many races who follow the custom, such as the Fijians, Samoans, Papuans of New Guinea, the Caroline Islanders, and some tribes in the interior of Western Equatorial Africa, the rule of inheritance is to the brother first. Thus among the Santals, “when the elder brother dies, the next younger inherits the widow, children and all the property.” Further, there is no known race where it is permitted to a son to marry his own mother. Inheriting a woman in primitive societies would be always tantamount to marrying her, and, apart from any special laws of inheritance, it would be natural for the brother to take over the widow. In polygamous countries where a man leaves many widows the son would have a right of ownership over these, and could dispose of them or keep them as he pleased, his own mother alone excepted. Thus among the Bakalai, an African tribe, widows may marry the son of their dead husband, or in default of a son, can live with the brother. The Negroes of Benin and the Gabun and the Kaffirs of Natal have similar customs. In New Caledonia every man, married or single, must immediately marry his brother’s widow. In Polynesia the levirate has the force of law, and it is common throughout America and Asia.

3. Another explanation of the custom has been sought in a semi-religious motive which has had extraordinary influence in countries where to die without issue is regarded as a terrible calamity. The fear of this catastrophe would readily arise among people who did not believe in personal immortality, and to whom the extinction of their line would be tantamount to annihilation. Or it is easily conceivable as a natural result of ancestor-worship, under which failure of offspring entailed deprivation of cherished rites and service.[1] Thus it is only when the dead man has no offspring that the Jewish, Hindu and Malagasy laws prescribe that the brother shall “raise up seed” to him. In this sense the levirate forms part of the Deuteronomic Code, under which, however, the obligation is restricted to the brother who “dwelleth together” (i.e. on the family estate) with the dead man, and the first child only of the levirate marriage is regarded as that of the dead man. That the custom was obsolescent seems proved by the enjoining of ceremony on any brother who wished to evade the duty, though he had to submit to an insult from his sister-in-law, who draws off his sandal and spits in his face. The biblical story of Ruth exemplifies the custom, though with further modifications (see [Ruth, Book of]). Finally the custom is forbidden in Leviticus, though in New Testament times the levirate law was still observed by some Jews. The ceremony ordained by Deuteronomy is still observed among the orthodox. Among the Hindus the levir did not take his brother’s widow as wife, but he had intercourse with her. This practice was called niyoga.

4. Yet another suggested origin of the levirate is agrarian, the motive being to keep together under the levirate husband the property which would otherwise have been divided among all the brothers or next of kin.

See J. F. McLennan, Studies in Ancient History (London, 1886) and “The Levirate and Polyandry,” in The Fortnightly Review, n.s. vol. xxi. (1877); C. N. Starcke, The Primitive Family in its Origin and Development (London, 1889); Edward Westermarck, History of Human Marriage (London, 1894), pp. 510-514, where are valuable notes containing references to numerous books of travel; H. Spencer, Principles of Sociology, ii. 649; A. H. Post, Einleitung in das Stud. d. Ethnolog. Jurisprud. (1886).

[1] An expression of this idea is quoted from the Mahābhārata (Muir’s trans.), by Max Müller (Gifford Lectures), Anthropological Religion, p. 31—

LÉVIS (formerly Pointe Levi), the chief town of Lévis county, Quebec, Canada, situated on the precipitous south bank of the St Lawrence, opposite Quebec city. Pop. (1901) 7783. It is on the Intercolonial railway, and is the eastern terminus of the Grand Trunk and Quebec Central railways. It contains the Lorne dock, a Dominion government graving dock, 445 ft. long, 100 ft. wide, with a depth on the sill of 26½ and 20½ ft. at high water, spring and neap tides respectively. It is an important centre of the river trade, and is connected by steam ferries with the city of Quebec. It is named after the maréchal duc de Lévis, the last commander of the French troops in Canada.

LEVITES, or sons of Levi (son of Jacob by Leah), a sacred caste in ancient Israel, the guardians of the temple service at Jerusalem.[1]

1. Place in Ritual.—In the developed hierarchical system the ministers of the sanctuary are divided into distinct grades. All are “Levites” by descent, and are thus correlated in the genealogical and other lists, but the true priesthood is confined to the sons of Aaron, while the mass of the Levites are subordinate servants who are not entitled to approach the altar or to perform any strictly priestly function. All access to the Deity is restricted to the one priesthood and to the one sanctuary at Jerusalem; the worshipping subject is the nation of Israel as a unity, and the function of worship is discharged on its behalf by divinely chosen priests. The ordinary individual may not intrude under penalty of death; only those of Levitical origin may perform service, and they are essentially the servants and hereditary serfs of the Aaronite priests (see Num. xviii.). But such a scheme finds no place in the monarchy; it presupposes a hierocracy under which the priesthood increased its rights by claiming the privileges which past kings had enjoyed; it is the outcome of a complicated development in Old Testament religion in the light of which it is to be followed (see [Hebrew Religion]).

First (a), in the earlier biblical writings which describe the state of affairs under the Hebrew monarchy there is not this fundamental distinction among the Levites, and, although a list of Aaronite high-priests is preserved in a late source, internal details and the evidence of the historical books render its value extremely doubtful (1 Chron. vi. 3-15, 49-53). In Jerusalem itself the subordinate officers of the temple were not members of a holy gild, but of the royal body-guard, or bond-slaves who had access to the sacred courts, and might even be uncircumcised foreigners (Josh. ix. 27; 1 Kings xiv. 28; 2 Kings xi.; cf. Zeph. i. 8 seq.; Zech. xiv. 21). Moreover, ordinary individuals might serve as priests (1 Sam. ii II, 18, vii. 1; see 2 Sam. viii. 18, deliberately altered in 1 Chron. xviii. 17); however, every Levite was a priest, or at least qualified to become one (Deut. x. 8, xviii. 7; Judges xvii. 5-13), and when the author of 1 Kings xii. 31, wishes to represent Jeroboam’s priests as illegitimate, he does not say that they were not Aaronites, but that they were not of the sons of Levi.

The next stage (b) is connected with the suppression of the local high-places or minor shrines in favour of a central sanctuary. This involved the suppression of the Levitical priests in the country (cf. perhaps the allusion in Deut. xxi. 5); and the present book of Deuteronomy, in promulgating the reform, represents the Levites as poor scattered “sojourners” and recommends them to the charity of the people (Deut. xii. 12, 18 seq., xiv. 27, 29, xvi. 11, 14, xxvi. 11 sqq.). However, they are permitted to congregate at “the place which Yahweh shall choose,” where they may perform the usual priestly duties together with their brethren who “stand there before Yahweh,” and they are allowed their share of the offerings (Deut. xviii. 6-8).[2] The Deuteronomic history of the monarchy actually ascribes to the Judaean king Josiah (621 B.C.) the suppression of the high-places, and states that the local priests were brought to Jerusalem and received support, but did not minister at the altar (2 Kings xxiii. 9). Finally, a scheme of ritual for the second temple raises this exclusion to the rank of a principle. The Levites who had been idolatrous are punished by exclusion from the proper priestly work, and take the subordinate offices which the uncircumcised and polluted foreigners had formerly filled, while the sons of Zadok, who had remained faithful, are henceforth the legitimate priests, the only descendants of Levi who are allowed to minister unto Yahweh (Ezek. xliv. 6-15, cf. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xlviii. 11). “A threefold cord is not quickly broken,” and these three independent witnesses agree in describing a significant innovation which ends with the supremacy of the Zadokites of Jerusalem over their brethren.

In the last stage (c) the exclusion of the ordinary Levites from all share in the priesthood of the sons of Aaron is looked upon as a matter of course, dating from the institution of priestly worship by Moses. The two classes are supposed to have been founded separately (Exod. xxviii., cf. xxix. 9; Num. iii. 6-10), and so far from any degradation being attached to the rank and file of the Levites, their position is naturally an honourable one compared with that of the mass of non-Levitical worshippers (see Num. i. 50-53), and they are taken by Yahweh as a surrogate for the male first-born of Israel (iii. 11-13). They are inferior only to the Aaronites to whom they are “joined” (xviii. 2, a play on the name Levi) as assistants. Various adjustments and modifications still continue, and a number of scattered details may indicate that internal rivalries made themselves felt. But the different steps can hardly be recovered clearly, although the fact that the priesthood was extended beyond the Zadokites to families of the dispossessed priests points to some compromise (1 Chron. xxiv.). Further, it is subsequently found that certain classes of temple servants, the singers and porters, who had once been outside the Levitical gilds, became absorbed as the term “Levite” was widened, and this change is formally expressed by the genealogies which ascribe to Levi, the common “ancestor” of them all, the singers and even certain families whose heathenish and foreign names show that they were once merely servants of the temple.[3]

2. Significance of the Development.—Although the legal basis for the final stage is found in the legislation of the time of Moses (latter part of the second millennium B.C.), it is in reality scarcely earlier than the 5th century B.C., and the Jewish theory finds analogies when developments of the Levitical service are referred to David (1 Chron. xv. seq., xxiii. sqq.), Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix.) and Josiah (xxxv.)—contrast the history in the earlier books of Samuel and Kings—or when the still later book of Jubilees (xxxii.) places the rise of the Levitical priesthood in the patriarchal period. The traditional theory of the Mosaic origin of the elaborate Levitical legislation cannot be maintained save by the most arbitrary and inconsequential treatment of the evidence and by an entire indifference to the historical spirit; and, although numerous points of detail still remain very obscure, the three leading stages in the Levitical institutions are now recognized by nearly all independent scholars. These stages with a number of concomitant features confirm the literary hypothesis that biblical history is in the main due to two leading recensions, the Deuteronomic and the Priestly (cf. [b] and [c] above), which have incorporated older sources.[4] If the hierarchical system as it existed in the post-exilic age was really the work of Moses, it is inexplicable that all trace of it was so completely lost that the degradation of the non-Zadokites in Ezekiel was a new feature and a punishment, whereas in the Mosaic law the ordinary Levites, on the traditional view, was already forbidden priestly rights under penalty of death. There is in fact no clear evidence of the existence of a distinction between priests and Levites in any Hebrew writing demonstrably earlier than the Deuteronomic stage, although, even as the Pentateuch contains ordinances which have been carried back by means of a “legal convention” to the days of Moses, writers have occasionally altered earlier records of the history to agree with later standpoints.[5]

No argument in support of the traditional theory can be drawn from the account of Korah’s revolt (Num. xvi. sqq., see § 3) or from the Levitical cities (Num. xxxv.; Josh. xxi.). Some of the latter were either not conquered by the Israelites until long after the invasion, or, if conquered, were not held by Levites; and names are wanting of places in which priests are actually known to have lived. Certainly the names are largely identical with ancient holy cities, which, however, are holy because they possessed noted shrines, not because the inhabitants were members of a holy tribe. Gezer and Taanach, for example, are said to have remained in the hands of Canaanites (Judges i. 27, 29; cf. 1 Kings ix. 16), and recent excavation has shown how far the cultus of these cities was removed from Mosaic religion and ritual and how long the grosser elements persisted.[6] On the other hand, the sanctuaries obviously had always their local ministers, all of whom in time could be called Levitical, and it is only in this sense, not in that of the late priestly legislation, that a place like Shechem could ever have been included. Further, instead of holding cities and pasture-grounds, the Levites are sometimes described as scattered and divided (Gen. xlix. 7; Deut. xviii. 6), and though they may naturally possess property as private individuals, they alone of all the tribes of Israel possess no tribal inheritance (Num. xviii. 23, xxvi. 62; Deut. x. 9; Josh. xiv. 3). This fluctuation finds a parallel in the age at which the Levites were to serve; for neither has any reasonable explanation been found on the traditional view. Num. iv. 3 fixes the age at thirty, although in i. 3 it has been reduced to twenty; but in 1 Chron. xxiii. 3, David is said to have numbered them from the higher limit, whereas in vv. 24, 27 the lower figure is given on the authority of “the last words (or acts) of David.” In Num. viii. 23-26, the age is given as twenty-five, but twenty became usual and recurs in Ezra iii. 8 and 2 Chron. xxxi. 17. There are, however, independent grounds for believing that 1 Chron. xxiii. 24, 27, 2 Chron. xxxi. 17 belong to later insertions and that Ezr. iii. 8 is relatively late.

When, in accordance with the usual methods of Hebrew genealogical history, the Levites are defined as the descendants of Levi, the third son of Jacob by Leah (Gen. xxix. 34), a literal interpretation is unnecessary, and the only narrative wherein Levi appears as a person evidently delineates under the form of personification events in the history of the Levites (Gen. xxxiv.).[7] They take their place in Israel as the tribe set apart for sacred duties, and without entering into the large question how far the tribal schemes can be used for the earlier history of Israel, it may be observed that no adequate interpretation has yet been found of the ethnological traditions of Levi and other sons of Leah in their historical relation to one another or to the other tribes. However intelligible may be the notion of a tribe reserved for priestly service, the fact that it does not apply to early biblical history is apparent from the heterogeneous details of the Levitical divisions. The incorporation of singers and porters is indeed a late process, but it is typical of the tendency to co-ordinate all the religious classes (see [Genealogy]: Biblical). The genealogies in their complete form pay little heed to Moses, although Aaron and Moses could typify the priesthood and other Levites generally (1 Chron. xxiii. 14). Certain priesthoods in the first stage (§ 1 [a]) claimed descent from these prototypes, and it is interesting to observe (1) the growing importance of Aaron in the later sources of “the Exodus,” and (2) the relation between Mosheh (Moses) and his two sons Gershom and Eliezer, on the one side, and the Levitical names Mushi (i.e. the Mosaite), Gershon and the Aaronite priest Eleazar, on the other. There are links, also, which unite Moses with Kenite, Rechabite, Calebite and Edomite families, and the Levitical names themselves are equally connected with the southern tribes of Judah and Simeon and with the Edomites.[8] It is to be inferred, therefore, that some relationship subsisted, or was thought to subsist, among (1) the Levites, (2) clans actually located in the south of Palestine, and (3) families whose names and traditions point to a southern origin. The exact meaning of these features is not clear, but if it be remembered (a) that the Levites of post-exilic literature represent only the result of a long and intricate development, (b) that the name “Levite,” in the later stages at least, was extended to include all priestly servants, and (c) that the priesthoods, in tending to become hereditary, included priests who were Levites by adoption and not by descent, it will be recognized that the examination of the evidence for the earlier stages cannot confine itself to those narratives where the specific term alone occurs.

3. The Traditions of the Levites.—In the “Blessing of Moses” (Deut, xxxiii. 8-11), Levi is a collective name for the priesthood, probably that of (north) Israel. He is the guardian of the sacred oracles, knowing no kin, and enjoying his privileges for proofs of fidelity at Massah and Meribah. That these places (in the district of Kadesh) were traditionally associated with the origin of the Levites is suggested by various Levitical stories, although it is in a narrative now in a context pointing to Horeb or Sinai that the Levites are Israelites who for some cause (now lost) severed themselves from their people and took up a stand on behalf of Yahweh (Exod. xxxii.). Other evidence allows us to link together the Kenites, Calebites and Danites in a tradition of some movement into Palestine, evidently quite distinct from the great invasion of Israelite tribes which predominates in the existing records. The priesthood of Dan certainly traced its origin to Moses (Judges xvii. 9, xviii. 30); that of Shiloh claimed an equally high ancestry (1 Sam. ii. 27 seq.).[9] Some tradition of a widespread movement appears to be ascribed to the age of Jehu, whose accession, promoted by the prophet Elisha, marks the end of the conflict between Yahweh and Baal. To a Rechabite (the clan is allied to the Kenites) is definitely ascribed a hand in Jehu’s sanguinary measures, and, though little is told of the obviously momentous events, one writer clearly alludes to a bloody period when reforms were to be effected by the sword (1 Kings xix. 17). Similarly the story of the original selection of the Levites in the wilderness mentions an uncompromising massacre of idolaters. Consequently, it is very noteworthy that popular tradition preserves the recollection of some attack by the “brothers” Levi and Simeon upon the famous holy city of Shechem to avenge their “sister” Dinah (Gen. xxxiv.), and that a detailed narrative tells of the bloodthirsty though pious Danites who sacked an Ephraimite shrine on their journey to a new home (Judges xvii. sq.).

The older records utilized by the Deuteronomic and later compilers indicate some common tradition which has found expression in these varying forms. Different religious standpoints are represented in the biblical writings, and it is now important to observe that the prophecies of Hosea unmistakably show another attitude to the Israelite priesthood. The condemnation of Jehu’s bloodshed (Hos. i. 4) gives another view of events in which both Elijah and Elisha were concerned, and the change is more vividly realized when it is found that even to Moses and Aaron, the traditional founders of Israelite religion and ritual, is ascribed an offence whereby they incurred Yahweh’s wrath (Num. xx. 12, 24, xxvii. 14; Deut. ix. 20, xxxii. 51). The sanctuaries of Shiloh and Dan lasted until the deportation of Israel (Judges xviii. 30 seq.), and some of their history is still preserved in the account of the late pre-monarchical age (12th-11th centuries B.C.). Shiloh’s priestly gild is condemned for its iniquity (1 Sam. iii. 11-14), the sanctuary mysteriously disappears, and the priests are subsequently found at Nob outside Jerusalem (1 Sam. xxi. seq.). All idea of historical perspective has been lost, since the fall of Shiloh was apparently a recent event at the close of the 7th century (Jer. vii. 12-15, xxvi. 6-9). But the tendency to ascribe the disasters of northern Israel to the priesthood (see esp. Hosea) takes another form when an inserted prophecy revokes the privileges of the ancient and honourable family, foretells its overthrow, and announces the rise of a new faithful and everlasting priesthood, at whose hands the dispossessed survivors, reduced to poverty, would beg some priestly office to secure a livelihood (1 Sam. ii. 27-36). The sequel to this phase is placed in the reign of Solomon, when David’s old priest Abiathar, sole survivor of the priests of Shiloh, is expelled to Anathoth (near Jerusalem), and Zadok becomes the first chief priest contemporary with the foundation of the first temple (1 Kings ii. 27, 35). These situations cannot be severed from what is known elsewhere of the Deuteronomic teaching, of the reform ascribed to Josiah, or of the principle inculcated by Ezekiel (see § 1 [b]). The late specific tendency in favour of Jerusalem agrees with the Deuteronomic editor of Kings who condemns the sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel for calf-worship (1 Kings xii. 28-31), and does not acknowledge the northern priesthood to be Levitical (1 Kings xii. 31, note the interpretation in 2 Chron. xi. 14, xiii. 9). It is from a similar standpoint that Aaron is condemned for the manufacture of the golden calf, and a compiler (not the original writer) finds its sequel in the election of the faithful Levites.[10]

In the third great stage there is another change in the tone. The present (priestly) recension of Gen. xxxiv. has practically justified Levi and Simeon from its standpoint of opposition to intermarriage, and in spite of Jacob’s curse (Gen. xlix. 5-7) later traditions continue to extol the slaughter of the Shechemitcs as a pious duty. Post-exilic revision has also hopelessly obscured the offence of Moses and Aaron, although there was already a tendency to place the blame upon the people (Deut. i. 37, iii. 26, iv. 21). When two-thirds of the priestly families are said to be Zadokites and one-third are of the families of Abiathar, some reconciliation, some adjustment of rivalries, is to be recognized (1 Chron. xxiv.). Again, in the composite story of Korah’s revolt, one version reflects a contest between Aaronites and the other Levites who claimed the priesthood (Num. xvi. 8-11, 36-40), while another shows the supremacy of the Levites as a caste either over the rest of the people (? cf. the prayer, Deut. xxxiii. 11), or, since the latter are under the leadership of Korah, later the eponym of a gild of singers, perhaps over the more subordinate ministers who once formed a separate class.[11] In the composite work Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (dating after the post-exilic Levitical legislation) a peculiar interest is taken in the Levites, more particularly in the singers, and certain passages even reveal some animus against the Aaronites (2 Chron. xxix. 34, xxx. 3). A Levite probably had a hand in the work, and this, with the evidence for the Levitical Psalms (see [Psalms]), gives the caste an interesting place in the study of the transmission of the biblical records.[12] But the history of the Levites in the early post-exilic stage and onwards is a separate problem, and the work of criticism has not advanced sufficiently for a proper estimate of the various vicissitudes. However, the feeling which was aroused among the priests when some centuries later the singers obtained from Agrippa the privilege of wearing the priestly linen dress (Josephus, Ant. xx. 9. 6), at least enables one to appreciate more vividly the scantier hints of internal jealousies during the preceding years.[13]

4. Summary.—From the inevitable conclusion that there are three stages in the written sources for the Levitical institutions, the next step is the correlation of allied traditions on the basis of the genealogical evidence. But the problem of fitting these into the history of Israel still remains. The assumption that the earlier sources for the pre-monarchical history, as incorporated by late compilers, are necessarily trustworthy confuses the inquiry (on Gen. xxxiv., see [Simeon]), and even the probability of a reforming spirit in Jehu’s age depends upon the internal criticism of the related records (see [Jews], §§ 11-14). The view that the Levites came from the south may be combined with the conviction that there Yahweh had his seat (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Judges v. 4; Hab. iii. 3), but the latter is only one view, and the traditions of the patriarchs point to another belief (cf. also Gen. iv. 26). The two are reconciled when the God of the patriarchs reveals His name for the first time unto Moses (Exod. iii. 15, vi. 3). With these variations is involved the problem of the early history of the Israelites.[14] Moreover, the real Judaean tendency which associates the fall of Eli’s priesthood at Shiloh with the rise of the Zadokites involves the literary problems of Deuteronomy, a composite work whose age is not certainly known, and of the twofold Deuteronomic redaction elsewhere, one phase of which is more distinctly Judaean and anti-Samaritan. There are vicissitudes and varying standpoints which point to a complicated literary history and require some historical background, and, apart from actual changes in the history of the Levites, some allowance must be made for the real character of the circles where the diverse records originated or through which they passed. The key must be sought in the exilic and post-exilic age where, unfortunately, direct and decisive evidence is lacking. It is clear that the Zadokite priests were rendered legitimate by finding a place for their ancestor in the Levitical genealogies—through Phinehas (cf. Num. xxv. 12 seq.), and Aaron—there was a feeling that a legitimate priest must be an Aaronite, but the historical reason for this is uncertain (see R. H. Kennett, Journ. Theolog. Stud., 1905, pp. 161 sqq.). Hence, it is impossible at present to trace the earlier steps which led to the grand hierarchy of post-exilic Judaism. Even the name Levite itself is of uncertain origin. Though popularly connected with lāvāh, “be joined, attached,” an ethnic from Leah has found some favour; the Assyrian lī’u “powerful, wise,” has also been suggested. The term has been more plausibly identified with l-v-’ (fem. l-v-’-t), the name given in old Arabian inscriptions (e.g. at al-‘Olā, south-east of Elath) to the priests and priestesses of the Arabian god Vadd (so especially Hommel, Anc. Heb. Trad., pp. 278 seq.). The date of the evidence, however, has not been fixed with unanimity, and this very attractive and suggestive view requires confirmation and independent support.

Authorities.—For the argument in § 1, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 121-151; W. R. Smith, Old Test. in Jew. Church (2nd ed., Index, s.v. “Levites”); A. Kuenen, Hexateuch, §§ 3 n. 16; 11, pp. 203 sqq.; 15 n. 15 (more technical); also the larger commentaries on Exodus-Joshua and the ordinary critical works on Old Testament literature. In § 1 and part of § 2 use has been freely made of W. R. Smith’s article “Levites” in the 9th edition of the Ency. Brit. (see the revision by A. Bertholet, Ency. Bib. col. 2770 sqq.). For the history of the Levites in the post-exilic and later ages, see the commentaries on Numbers (by G. B. Gray) and Chronicles (E. L. Curtis), and especially H. Vogelstein, Der Kampf zwischen Priestern u. Leviten seit den Tagen Ezechiels, with Kuenen’s review in his Gesammelte Abhandlungen (ed. K. Budde, 1894). See further [Priest].

(S. A. C.)

[1] For the derivation of “Levi” see below § 4 end.

[2] The words “beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony” (lit. “his sellings according to the fathers”) are obscure; they seem to imply some additional source of income which the Levite enjoys at the central sanctuary.

[3] For the něthīnīm (“given”) and “children of the slaves of Solomon” (whose hereditary service would give them a pre-eminence over the temple slaves), see art. [Nethinim], and Benzinger, Ency. Bib. cols. 3397 sqq.

[4] In defence of the traditional view, see S. I. Curtiss, The Levitical Priests (1877), with which his later attitude should be contrasted (see Primitive Semitic Religion To-day, pp. 14, 50, 133 seq., 171, 238 sqq., 241 sqq.); W. L. Baxter, Sanctuary and Sacrifice (1895); A. van Hoonacker, Le Sacerdoce lévitique (1899); and J. Orr, Problem of the O.T. (1905). These and other apologetic writings have so far failed to produce any adequate alternative hypothesis, and while they argue for the traditional theory, later revision not being excluded, the modern critical view accepts late dates for the literary sources in their present form, and explicitly recognizes the presence of much that is ancient. Note the curious old tradition that Ezra wrote out the law which had been burnt (2 Esdr. xiv. 21 sqq.).

[5] For example, in 1 Kings viii. 4, there are many indications that the context has undergone considerable editing at a fairly late date. The Septuagint translators did not read the clause which speaks of “priests and Levites,” and 2 Chron. v. 5 reads “the Levite priests,” the phrase characteristic of the Deuteronomic identification of priestly and Levitical ministry. 1 Sam. vi. 15, too, brings in the Levites, but the verse breaks the connexion between 14 and 16. For the present disorder in the text of 2 Sam. xv. 24, see the commentaries.

[6] See Father H. Vincent, O.P., Canaan d’après l’exploration récente (1907), pp. 151, 200 sqq., 463 sq.

[7] So Gen. xxxiv. 7, Hamor has wrought folly “in Israel” (cf. Judges xx. 6 and often), and in v. 30 “Jacob” is not a personal but a collective idea, for he says, “I am a few men,” and the capture and destruction of a considerable city is in the nature of things the work of more than two individuals. In the allusion to Levi and Simeon in Gen. xlix. the two are spoken of as “brothers” with a communal assembly. See, for other examples of personification, [Genealogy]: Biblical.

[8] See E. Meyer, Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme, pp. 299 sqq. (passim); S. A. Cook, Ency. Bib. col. 1665 seq.; Crit. Notes on O.T. History, pp. 84 sqq., 122-125.

[9] The second element of the name Abiathar is connected with Jether or Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, and even Ichabod (1 Sam. iv. 21) seems to be an intentional reshaping of Jochebed, which is elsewhere the name of the mother of Moses. Phinehas, Eli’s son, becomes in later writings the name of a prominent Aaronite priest in the days of the exodus from Egypt.

[10] With this development in Israelite religion, observe that Judaean cult included the worship of a brazen serpent, the institution of which was ascribed to Moses, and that, according to the compiler of Kings, Hezekiah was the first to destroy it when he suppressed idolatrous worship in Judah (2 Kings xviii. 4). It may be added that the faithful Kenites (found in N. Palestine, Judges iv. 11) appear in another light when threatened with captivity by Asshur (Num. xxiv. 22; cf. fall of Dan and Shiloh), and if their eponym is Cain (q.v.), the story of Cain and Abel serves, amid a variety of purposes, to condemn the murder of the settled agriculturist by the nomad, but curiously allows that any retaliation upon Cain shall be avenged (see below, note 5).

[11] The name Korah itself is elsewhere Edomite (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14, 18) and Calebite (1 Chron. ii. 43). See Ency. Bib., s.v.

[12]: The musical service of the temple has no place in the Pentateuch, but was considerably developed under the second temple and attracted the special attention of Greek observers (Theophrastus, apud Porphyry, de Abstin. ii. 26); see on this subject, R. Kittel’s Handkommentar on Chronicles, pp. 90 sqq.

[13] Even the tithes enjoyed by the Levites (Num. xviii. 21 seq.) were finally transferred to the priests (so in the Talmud: see Yebamoth, fol. 86a, Carpzov, App. ad Godw. p. 624; Hottinger, De Dec. vi. 8, ix. 17).

[14] For some suggestive remarks on the relation between nomadism and the Levites, and their influence upon Israelite religion and literary tradition, see E. Meyer, Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme (1906), pp. 82-89, 138; on the problems of early Israelite history, see [Simeon] (end), [Jews], §§ 5, 8, and [Palestine], History.

LEVITICUS, in the Bible, the third book of the Pentateuch. The name is derived from that of the Septuagint version (τὸ) λευ[ε]ιτικόν (sc. βιβλίον), though the English form is due to the Latin rendering, Leviticus (sc. liber). By the Jews the book is called Wayyiḳrā (ויקרא) from the first word of the Hebrew text, but it is also referred to (in the Talmud and Massorah) as Tōrath kōhănīm (תורת כהנים, law of the priests), Sēpher kōhănīm (ספר כ״, book of the priests), and Sēpher ḳorbānīm (ספר קרבנים, book of offerings). As a descriptive title Leviticus, “the Levitical book,” is not inappropriate to the contents of the book, which exhibits an elaborate system of sacrificial worship. In this connexion, however, the term “Levitical” is used in a perfectly general sense, since there is no reference in the book itself to the Levites themselves.

The book of Leviticus presents a marked contrast to the two preceding books of the Hexateuch in that it is derived from one document only, viz. the Priestly Code (P), and contains no trace of the other documents from which the Hexateuch has been compiled. Hence the dominant interest is a priestly one, while the contents are almost entirely legislative as opposed to historical. But though the book as a whole is assigned to a single document, its contents are by no means homogeneous: in fact the critical problem presented by the legislative portions of Leviticus, though more limited in scope, is very similar to that of the other books of the Hexateuch. Here, too, the occurrence of repetitions and divergencies, the variations of standpoint and practice, and, at times, the linguistic peculiarities point no less clearly to diversity of origin.

The historical narrative with which P connects his account of the sacred institutions of Israel is reduced in Leviticus to a minimum, and presents no special features. The consecration of Aaron and his sons (viii. ix.) resumes the narrative of Exod. xl., and this is followed by a brief notice of the death of Nadab and Abihu (x. 1-5), and later by an account of the death of the blasphemer (xxiv. 10 f.). Apart from these incidents, which, in accordance with the practice of P, are utilized for the purpose of introducing fresh legislation, the book consists of three main groups or collections of ritual laws: (1) chaps, i.-vii., laws of sacrifice; (2) chaps, xi.-xv., laws of purification, with an appendix (xvi.) on the Day of Atonement; (3) chaps, xvii.-xxvi., the Law of Holiness, with an appendix (xxvii.) on vows and tithes. In part these laws appear to be older than P, but when examined in detail the various collections show unmistakably that they have undergone more than one process of redaction before they assumed the form in which they are now presented. The scope of the present article does not permit of an elaborate analysis of the different sections, but the evidence adduced will, it is hoped, afford sufficient proof of the truth of this statement.

I. The Laws of Sacrifice.—Chaps. i.-vii. This group of laws clearly formed no part of the original narrative of P since it interrupts the connexion of chap. viii. with Exod. xl. For chap. viii. describes how Moses carried out the command of Exod. xl. 12-15 in accordance with the instructions given in Exod. xxix. 1-35, and bears the same relation to the latter passage that Exod. xxxv. ff. bears to Exod. xxv. ff. Hence we can only conclude that Lev. i.-vii. were added by a later editor. This conclusion does not necessarily involve a late date for the laws themselves, many of which have the appearance of great antiquity, though their original form has been considerably modified. But though these chapters form an independent collection of laws, and were incorporated as such in P, a critical analysis of their contents shows that they were not all derived from the same source.

The collection falls into two divisions, (a) i.-vi. 7 (Heb. v. 26), and (b) vi. 8 (Heb. vi. 1)-vii., the former being addressed to the people and the latter to the priests. The laws contained in (a) refer to (1) burnt-offerings, i.; (2) meal-offerings, ii.; (3) peace-offerings, iii.; (4) sin-offerings, iv. (on v. 1-13 see below); (5) trespass-offerings, v. 14-vi. 7 (Heb. v. 14-26). The laws in (b) cover practically the same ground—(1) burnt-offerings, vi. 8-13 (Heb. vv. 1-6); (2) meal-offerings, vi. 14-18 (Heb. vv. 7-11); (3) the meal-offering of the priest, vi. 19-23 (Heb. vv. 12-16); (4) sin-offerings, vi. 24-30 (Heb. vv. 17-23); (5) trespass-offerings, vii. 1-7, together with certain regulations for the priest’s share of the burnt- and meal-offerings (vv. 8-10); (6) peace-offerings, vii. 11-21. Then follow the prohibition of eating the fat or blood (vv. 22-28), the priest’s share of the peace-offerings (vv. 29-34), the priest’s anointing-portion (vv. 35, 36), and the subscription (vv. 37, 38). The second group of laws is thus to a certain extent supplementary to the first, and was, doubtless, intended as such by the editor of chaps. i.-vii. Originally it can hardly have formed part of the same collection; for (a) the order is different, that of the second group being supported by its subscription, and (b) the laws in vi. 8-vii. are regularly introduced by the formula “This is the law (tōrah) of....” Most probably the second group was excerpted by the editor of chaps. i.-vii. from another collection for the purpose of supplementing the laws of i.-v., more especially on points connected with the functions and dues of the officiating priests.

Closer investigation, however, shows that both groups of laws contain heterogeneous elements and that their present form is the result of a long process of development. Thus i. and iii. seem to contain genuinely old enactments, though i. 14-17 is probably a later addition, since there is no reference to birds in the general heading v. 2. Chap. ii. 1-3, on the other hand, though it corresponds in form to i. and iii., interrupts the close connexion between those chapters, and should in any case stand after iii.: the use of the second for the third person in the remaining verses points to a different source. As might be expected from the nature of the sacrifice with which it deals, iv. (sin-offerings) seems to belong to a relatively later period of the sacrificial system. Several features confirm this view: (1) the blood of the sin-offering of the “anointed priest” and of the whole congregation is brought within the veil and sprinkled on the altar of incense, (2) the sin-offering of the congregation is a bullock, and not, as elsewhere, a goat (ix. 15; Num. xv. 24), (3) the altar of incense is distinguished from the altar of burnt-offering (as opposed to Exod. xxix.; Lev. viii. ix.). Chap. v. 1-13 have usually been regarded as an appendix to iv., setting forth (a) a number of typical cases for which a sin-offering is required (vv. 1-6), and (b) certain concessions for those who could not afford the ordinary sin-offering (vv. 7-13). But vv. 1-6, which are not homogeneous (vv. 2 and 3 treating of another question and interrupting vv. 1, 4, 5 f.), cannot be ascribed to the same author as iv.: for (1) it presents a different theory of the sin-offering (contrast v. 1 f. with iv. 2), (2) it ignores the fourfold division of offerings corresponding to the rank of the offender, (3) it fails to observe the distinction between sin- and trespass-offering (in vv. 6, 7, “his guilt-offering” (אשמו) appears to have the sense of a “penalty” or “forfeit,” unless with Baentsch we read קרבנו “his oblation” in each case; cf. v. 11, iv. 23 ff. Verses 7-13, on the other hand, form a suitable continuation of iv., though probably they are secondary in character. Chap. v. 14 (Heb. v. 26)-vi. 7 contain regulations for the trespass-offering, in which the distinctive character of that offering is clearly brought out. The cases cited in vi. 1-7 (Heb. v. 20-26) are clearly analogous to those in v. 14-16, from which they are at present separated by vv. 17-19. These latter prescribe a trespass-offering for the same case for which in iv. 22 f. a sin-offering is required: it is noticeable also that no restitution, the characteristic feature of the āshām, is prescribed. It is hardly doubtful that the verses are derived from a different source to that of their immediate context, possibly the same as v. 1-6.

The subscription (vii. 37, 38) is our chief guide to determining the original extent of the second group of laws (vi. 8 [Heb. vi. 1]-vii. 36). From it we infer that originally the collection only dealt with the five chief sacrifices (vi. 8-13; 14-18; 24, 25, 27-30; vii. 1-6; 11-21) already discussed in i.-v., since only these are referred to in the colophon where they are given in the same order (the consecration-offering [v. 37] is probably due to the same redactor who introduced the gloss “in the day when he is anointed” in vi. 20). Of the remaining sections vi. 19-23 (Heb. 12-16), the daily meal-offering of the (high-) priest, betrays its secondary origin by its absence from the subscription, cf. also the different introduction. Chaps. vi. 26 (Heb. 19) and vii. 7 assign the offering to the officiating priest in contrast to vi. 18 (Heb. 11), 29 (Heb. 22), vii. 6 (“every male among the priests”), and possibly belong, together with vii. 8-10, to a separate collection which dealt especially with priestly dues. Chap. vii. 22-27, which prohibit the eating of fat and blood, are addressed to the community at large, and were, doubtless, inserted here in connexion with the sacrificial meal which formed the usual accompaniment of the peace-offering. Chap. vii. 28-34 are also addressed to the people, and cannot therefore have formed part of the original priestly manual; v. 33 betrays the same hand as vi. 26 (Heb. 19) and vii. 7, and with 35a may be assigned to the same collection as those verses; to the redactor must be assigned vv. 32 (a doublet of v. 33), 34, 35b and 36.

Chaps. viii.-x. As stated, these chapters form the original sequel to Exod. xl. They describe (a) the consecration of Aaron and his sons, a ceremony which lasted seven days (viii.), and (b) the public worship on the eighth day, at which Aaron and his sons officiated for the first time as priests (ix.); then follow (c) an account of the death of Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire (x. 1-5); (d) various regulations affecting the priests (vv. 12-15), and (e) an explanation, in narrative form, of the departure in ix. 15 from the rules for the sin-offering given in vi. 30 (vv. 16-20).

According to Exod. xl. 1-15 Moses was commanded to set up the Tabernacle and to consecrate the priests, and the succeeding verses (16-38) describe how the former command was carried out. The execution of the second command, however, is first described in Lev. viii., and since the intervening chapters exhibit obvious traces of belonging to another source, we may conclude with some certainty that Lev. viii. formed the immediate continuation of Exod. xl. in the original narrative of P. But it has already been pointed out (see Exodus) that Exod. xxxv.-xl. belong to a later stratum of P than Exod. xxv.-xxix, hence it is by no means improbable that Exod. xxxv-xl. have superseded an earlier and shorter account of the fulfilment of the commands in Exod. xxv.-xxix. If this be the case, we should naturally expect to find that Lev. viii., which bears the same relation to Exod. xxix. 1-35 as Exod. xxxv. ff. to Exod. xxv. ff. also belonged to a later stratum. But Lev. viii., unlike Exod xxxv. ff., only mentions one altar, and though in its present form the chapter exhibits marks of later authorship, these marks form no part of the original account, but are clearly the work of a later editor. These additions, the secondary character of which is obvious both from the way in which they interrupt the context and also from their contents, are (1), v. 10, the anointing of the Tabernacle in accordance with Exod. xxx. 26 ff.: it is not enjoined in Exod. xxix.; (2) v. 11, the anointing of the altar and the laver (cf. Exod. xxx. 17 ff.) as in Exod. xxix. 36b, xxx. 26 ff.; (3) v. 30, the sprinkling of blood and oil on Aaron and his sons. Apart from these secondary elements, which readily admit of excision, the chapter is in complete accord with P as regards point of view and language, and is therefore to be assigned to that source.

The consecration of Aaron and his sons was, according to P, a necessary preliminary to the offering of sacrifice, and chap. ix. accordingly describes the first solemn act of worship. The ceremony consists of (a) the offerings for Aaron, and (b) those for the congregation; then follows the priestly blessing (v. 22), after which Moses and Aaron enter the sanctuary, and on reappearing once more bless the people. The ceremony terminates with the appearance of the glory of Yahweh, accompanied by a fire which consumes the sacrifices on the altar. Apart from a few redactional glosses the chapter as a whole belongs to P. The punishment of Nadab and Abihu by death for offering “strange fire” (x. 1-5) forms a natural sequel to chap. ix. To this incident a number of disconnected regulations affecting the priests have been attached, of which the first, viz. the prohibition of mourning to Aaron and his sons (vv. 6, 7), alone has any connexion with the immediate context; as it stands, the passage is late in form (cf. xxi. 10 ff.). The second passage, vv. 8, 9, which prohibits the use of wine and strong drink to the priest when on duty, is clearly a later addition. The connexion between these verses and the following is extremely harsh, and since vv. 10, 11 relate to an entirely different subject (cf. xi. 47), the latter verses must be regarded as a misplaced fragment. Verses 12-15 relate to the portions of the meal- and peace-offerings which fell to the lot of the priests, and connect, therefore, with chap. ix.; possibly they have been wrongly transferred from that chapter. In the remaining paragraph, x. 16-20, we have an interesting example of the latest type of additions to the Hexateuch. According to ix. 15 (cf. v. 11) the priests had burnt the flesh of the sin-offering which had been offered on behalf of the congregation, although its blood had not been taken into the inner sanctuary (cf. iv. 1-21, vi. 26). Such treatment, though perfectly legitimate according to the older legislation (Exod. xxix. 14; cf. Lev. viii. 17), was in direct contradiction to the ritual of vi. 24 ff., which prescribed that the flesh of ordinary sin-offerings should be eaten by the priests. Such a breach of ritual on the part of Aaron and his sons seemed to a later redactor to demand an explanation, and this is furnished in the present section.

II. The Laws of Purification.—Chaps. xi.-xv. This collection of laws comprises four main sections relating to (1) clean and unclean beasts (xi.), (2) childbirth (xii.), (3) leprosy (xiii. xiv.), and (4) certain natural secretions (xv.). These laws, or tōrōth, are so closely allied to each other by the nature of their contents and their literary form (cf. especially the recurring formula “This is the law of ...” xi. 46, xii. 7, xiii. 59, xiv. 32, 54, 57, xv. 32) that they must originally have formed a single collection. The collection, however, has clearly undergone more than one redaction before reaching its final form. This is made evident not only by the present position of chap. xii. which in v. 2 presupposes chap. xv. (cf. xv. 19), and must originally have followed after that chapter, but also by the contents of the different sections, which exhibit clear traces of repeated revision. At the same time it seems, like chaps. i.-vii., xvii.-xxvi., to have been formed independently of P and to have been added to that document by a later editor; for in its present position it interrupts the main thread of P’s narrative, chap. xvi. forming the natural continuation of chap. x.; and, further, the inclusion of Aaron as well as Moses in the formula of address (xi. 1, xiii. 1, xiv. 33, xv. 1) is contrary to the usage of P.

1. Chap. xi. consists of two main sections, of which the first (vv. 1-23, 41-47) contains directions as to the clean and unclean animals which may or may not be used for food, while the second (vv: 24-40) treats of the defilement caused by contact with the carcases of unclean animals (in v. 39 f. contact with clean animals after death is also forbidden), and prescribes certain rites of purification. The main interest of the chapter, from the point of view of literary criticism, centres in the relation of the first section to the Law of Holiness (xvii.-xxvi.) and to the similar laws in Deut. xiv. 3-20. From xx. 25 it has been inferred with considerable probability that H, or the Law of Holiness, originally contained legislation of a similar character with reference to clean and unclean animals; and many scholars have held that the first section (vv. 1 [or 2]-23 and 41-47) really belongs to that code. But while vv. 43-45 may unhesitatingly be assigned to H, the remaining verses fail to exhibit any of the characteristic features of that code. We must assign them, therefore, to another source, though, in view of xx. 25 and xi. 43-45, it is highly probable that they have superseded similar legislation belonging to H.

The relation of Lev. xi. 2-23 to Deut. xiv. 4-20 is less easy to determine, since the phenomena presented by the two texts are somewhat inconsistent. The two passages are to a large extent verbally identical, but while Deut. xiv. 4b, 5 both defines and exemplifies the clean animals (as opposed to Lev. xi. 3; which only defines them), the rest of the Deuteronomic version is much shorter than that of Leviticus. Thus, except for vv. 4b, 5, the Deuteronomic version, which in its general style, and to a certain extent in its phraseology (cf. מין kind, vv. 13, 15, 18, and שרץ swarm, v. 19), shows traces of a priestly origin, might be regarded as an abridgment of Lev. xi. But the Deuteronomic version uses טמא unclean throughout (vv. 7, 10. 19), while Lev xi. from v. 11 onwards employs the technical term שקץ detestable thing, and it is at least equally possible to treat the longer version of Leviticus as an expansion of Deut. xiv. 4-20. The fact that Deut. xiv. 21 permits the stranger (גר) to eat the flesh of any animal that dies a natural death, while Lev. xvii. 25 places him on an equal footing with the Israelite, cannot be cited in favour of the priority of Deuteronomy since v. 21 is clearly supplementary; cf. also Lev. xi. 39. On the whole it seems best to accept the view that both passages are derived separately from an earlier source.

2. Chap. xii. prescribes regulations for the purification of a woman after the birth of (a) a male and (b) a female child. It has been already pointed out that this chapter would follow more suitably after chap. xv., with which it is closely allied in regard to subject-matter. The closing formula (v. 7) shows clearly that, as in the case of v. 7-13 (cf. i. 14-17), the concessions in favour of the poorer worshipper are a later addition.

3. Chaps. xiii., xiv. The regulations concerning leprosy fall readily into four main divisions: (a) xiii. 1-46a, an elaborate description of the symptoms common to the earlier stages of leprosy and other skin diseases to guide the priest in deciding as to the cleanness or uncleanness of the patient; (b) xiii. 47-59, a further description of different kinds of mould or fungus growth affecting stuffs and leather; (c) xiv. 1-32, the rites of purification to be employed after the healing of leprosy; and (d) xiv. 33-53, regulations dealing with the appearance of patches of mould or mildew on the walls of a house. Like other collections the group of laws on leprosy easily betrays its composite character and exhibits unmistakable evidence of its gradual growth. There is, however, no reason to doubt that a large portion of the laws is genuinely old since the subject is one that would naturally call for early legislation; moreover, Deut. xxiv. 8 presupposes the existence of regulations concerning leprosy, presumably oral, which were in the possession of the priests. The earliest sections are admittedly xiii. 1-46a and xiv. 2-8a, the ritual of the latter being obviously of a very archaic type. The secondary character of xiii. 47-59 is evident: it interrupts the close connexion between xiii. 1-46a and xiv. 2-8a, and further it is provided with its own colophon in v. 59. A similar character must be assigned to the remaining verses of chap. xiv., with the exception of the colophon in v. 57b; the latter has been successively expanded in vv. 54-57a so as to include the later additions. Thus xiv. 9-20 prescribes a second and more elaborate ritual of purification after the healing of leprosy, though the leper, according to v. 8a, is already clean; its secondary character is further shown by the heightening of the ceremonial which seems to be modelled on that of the consecration of the priest (viii. 23 ff.), the multiplication of sacrifices and the minute regulations with regard to the blood and oil. The succeeding section (vv. 21-32) enjoins special modifications for those who cannot afford the more costly offerings of vv. 9-20, and like v. 7-13, xii. 8 is clearly a later addition; cf. the separate colophon, v. 32. The closing section xiv. 33-53 is closely allied to xiii. 47-59, though probably later in date: probably the concluding verses (48-53), in which the same rites are prescribed for the purification of a house as are ordained for a person in vv. 3-8a, were added at a still later period.

4. Chap. xv. deals with the rites of purification rendered necessary by various natural secretions, and is therefore closely related to chap. xii. On the analogy of the other laws it is probable that the old tōrāh, which forms the basis of the chapter, has been subsequently expanded, but except in the colophon (vv. 32-34), which displays marks of later redaction, there is nothing to guide us in separating the additional matter.

Chap. xvi. It may be regarded as certain that this chapter consists of three main elements, only one of which was originally connected with the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, and that it has passed through more than one stage of revision. Since the appearance of Benzinger’s analysis ZATW (1889), critics in the main have accepted the division of the chapter into three independent sections: (1) vv. 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 34b (probably vv. 23, 24 also form part of this section), regulations to be observed by Aaron whenever he might enter “the holy place within the veil.” These regulations are the natural outcome of the death of Nadab and Abihu (x. 1-5), and their object is to guard Aaron from a similar fate; the section thus forms the direct continuation of chap. x.; (2) vv. 29-34a, rules for the observance of a yearly fast day, having for their object the purification of the sanctuary and of the people; (3) vv. 5, 7-10, 14-22, 26-28, a later expansion of the blood-ritual to be performed by the high-priest when he enters the Holy of Holies, with which is combined the strange ceremony of the goat which is sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. The matter common to the first two sections, viz. the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies, was doubtless the cause of their subsequent fusion; beyond this, however, the sections have no connexion with one another, and must originally have been quite independent. Doubtless, as Benzinger suggests, the rites to be performed by the officiating high priest on the annual Day of Atonement, which are not prescribed in vv. 29-34a, were identical with those laid down in chap. ix. That the third section belongs to a later stage of development and was added at a later date is shown by (a) the incongruity of vv. 14 ff. with v. 6—according to the latter the purification of Aaron is a preliminary condition of his entrance within the veil—and (b) the elaborate ceremonial in connexion with the sprinkling of the blood. The first section, doubtless, belongs to the main narrative of P; it connects directly with chap. x. and presupposes only one altar (cf. v. 12, Exod. xxviii. 35). The second and third sections, however, must be assigned to a later stratum of P, if only because they appear to have been unknown to Ezra (Neh. ix. 1); the fact that Ezra’s fast day took place on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month (as opposed to Lev. xvi. 29, xxiii. 26 f.) acquires an additional importance in view of the agreement between Neh. viii. 23 f. and Lev. xxiii. 33 f. as to the date of the Feast of Tabernacles. No mention is made of the Day of Atonement in the pre-exilic period, and it is a plausible conjecture that the present law arose from the desire to turn the spontaneous fasting of Neh. ix. 1 into an annual ceremony; in any case directions as to the annual performance of the rite must originally have preceded vv. 29 ff. Possibly the omission of this introduction is due to the redactor who combined (1) and (2) by transferring the regulations of (1) to the ritual of the annual Day of Atonement. At a later period the ritual was further developed by the inclusion of the additional ceremonial contained in (3).

III. The Law of Holiness.—Chaps. xvii.-xxvi. The group of laws contained in these chapters has long been recognized as standing apart from the rest of the legislation set forth in Leviticus. For, though they display undeniable affinity with P, they also exhibit certain features which closely distinguish them from that document. The most noticeable of these is the prominence assigned to certain leading ideas and motives, especially to that of holiness. The idea of holiness, indeed, is so characteristic of the entire group that the title “Law of Holiness,” first given to it by Klostermann (1877), has been generally adopted. The term “holiness” in this connexion consists positively in the fulfilment of ceremonial obligations and negatively in abstaining from the defilement caused by heathen customs and superstitions, but it also includes obedience to the moral requirements of the religion of Yahweh.

On the literary side also the chapters are distinguished by the paraenetic setting in which the laws are embedded and by the use of a special terminology, many of the words and phrases occurring rarely, if ever, in P (for a list of characteristic phrases cf. Driver, L.O.T.^6, p. 49). Further, the structure of these chapters, which closely resembles that of the other two Hexateuchal codes (Exod. xx. 22-xxiii. and Deut. xii.-xxviii.), may reasonably be adduced in support of their independent origin. All three codes contain a somewhat miscellaneous collection of laws; all alike commence with regulations as to the place of sacrifice and close with an exhortation. Lastly, some of the laws treat of subjects which have been already dealt with in P (cf. xvii. 10-14 and vii. 26 f., xix. 6-8 and vii. 15-18). It is hardly doubtful also that the group of laws, which form the basis of chaps. xvii.-xxvi., besides being independent of P, represent an older stage of legislation than that code. For the sacrificial system of H (= Law of Holiness) is less developed than that of P, and in particular shows no knowledge of the sin- and trespass-offerings; the high priest is only primus inter pares among his brethren, xxi. 10 (cf. Lev. x. 6, 7, where the same prohibition is extended to all the priests); the distinction between “holy” and “most holy” things (Num. xviii. 8) is unknown to Lev. xxii. (Lev. xxi. 22 is a later addition). It cannot be denied, however, that chaps. xvii.-xxvi. present many points of resemblance with P, both in language and subject-matter, but on closer examination these points of contact are seen to be easily separable from the main body of the legislation. It is highly probable, therefore, that these marks of P are to be assigned to the compiler who combined H with P. But though it may be regarded as certain that H existed as an independent code, it cannot be maintained that the laws which it contains are all of the same origin or belong to the same age. The evidence rather shows that they were first collected by an editor before they were incorporated in P. Thus there is a marked difference in style between the laws themselves and the paraenetic setting in which they are embedded; and it is not unnatural to conjecture that this setting is the work of the first editor.

Two other points in connexion with H are of considerable importance: (a) the possibility of other remains of H, and (b) its relation to Deuteronomy and Ezekiel.

(a) It is generally recognized that H, in its present form, is incomplete. The original code must, it is felt, have included many other subjects now passed over in silence. These, possibly, were omitted by the compiler of P, because they had already been dealt with elsewhere, or they may have been transferred to other connexions. This latter possibility is one that has appealed to many scholars, who have accordingly claimed many other passages of P as parts of H. We have already accepted xi. 43 ff. as an undoubted excerpt from H, but, with the exception of Num. xv. 37-41 (on fringes), the other passages of the Hexateuch which have been attributed to H do not furnish sufficient evidence to justify us in assigning them to that collection. Moore (Ency. Bibl. col. 2787) rightly points out that “resemblance in the subject or formulation of laws to tōrōth incorporated in H may point to a relation to the sources of H, but is not evidence that these laws were ever included in that collection.”

(b) The exact relation of H to Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is hard to determine. That chaps. xvii.-xxvi. display a marked affinity to Deuteronomy cannot be denied. Like D, they lay great stress on the duties of humanity and charity both to the Israelite and to the stranger (Deut. xxiv.; Lev. xix.; compare also laws affecting the poor in Deut. xv.; Lev. xxv.), but in some respects the legislation of H appears to reflect a more advanced stage than that of D, e.g. the rules for the priesthood (chap. xxi.), the feasts (xxiii. 9-20, 39-43), the Sabbatical year (xxv. 1-7, 18-22), weights and measures (xix. 35 f.). It must be remembered, however, that these laws have passed through more than one stage of revision and that the original regulations have been much obscured by later glosses and additions; it is therefore somewhat hazardous to base any argument on their present form. “The mutual independence of the two (codes) is rather to be argued from the absence of laws identically formulated, the lack of agreement in order either in the whole or in smaller portions, and the fact that of the peculiar motives and phrases of RD there is no trace in H (Lev. xxiii. 40 is almost solitary). It is an unwarranted assumption that all the fragments of Israelite legislation which have been preserved lie in one serial development” (Moore, Ency. Bibl. col. 2790).

The relation of H to Ezekiel is remarkably close, the resemblances between the two being so striking that many writers have regarded Ezekiel as the author of H. Such a theory, however, is excluded by the existence of even greater differences of style and matter, so that the main problem to be decided is whether Ezekiel is prior to H or vice versa. The main arguments brought forward by those who maintain the priority of Ezekiel are (1) the fact that H makes mention of a high priest, whereas Ezekiel betrays no knowledge of such an official, and (2) that the author of Lev. xxvi. presupposes a condition of exile and looks forward to a restoration from it. Too much weight, however, must not be attached to these points; for (1) the phrase used in Lev. xxi. 10 (literally, “he who is greater than his brethren”) cannot be regarded as the equivalent of the definitive “chief priest” of P, and is rather comparable with the usage of 2 Kings xxii. 4 ff., xxv. 18 (“the chief priest”), cf. “the priest” in xi. 9 ff., xvi. 10 ff.; and (2) the passages in Lev. xxvi. (vv. 34 f., 39-45), which are especially cited in support of the exilic standpoint of the writer, are just those which, on other grounds, show signs of later interpolation. The following considerations undoubtedly suggest the priority of H: (1) there is no trace in H of the distinction between priests and Levites first introduced by Ezekiel; (2) Ezekiel xviii., xx., xxii., xxiii. appear to presuppose the laws of Lev. xviii.-xx.; (3) the calendar of Lev. xxiii. represents an earlier stage of development than the fixed days and months of Ezek. xlv.; (4) the sin- and trespass-offerings are not mentioned in H (cf. Ezek. xl. 39, xlii. 13, xliv. 29, xlvi. 20); (5) the parallels to H, which are found especially in Ezek. xviii., xx., xxii. f., include both the paraenetic setting and the laws; and lastly, (6) a comparison of Lev. xxvi. with Ezekiel points to the greater originality of the former. Baentsch, however, who is followed by Bertholet, adopts the view that Lev. xxvi. is rather an independent hortatory discourse modelled on Ezekiel. The same writer further maintains that H consists of three separate elements, viz. chaps. xvii.; xviii.-xx., with various ordinances in chaps. xxiii.-xxv.; and xxii., xxiii., of which the last is certainly later than Ezekiel, while the second is in the main prior to that author. But the arguments which he adduces in favour of the threefold origin of H are not sufficient to outweigh the general impression of unity which the code presents.

Chap. xvii. comprises four main sections which are clearly marked off by similar introductory and closing formulae: (1) vv. 3-7, prohibition of the slaughter of domestic animals, unless they are presented to Yahweh; (2) vv. 8, 9, sacrifices to be offered to Yahweh alone; (3) vv. 10-12, prohibition of the eating of blood; (4) vv. 13, 14, the blood of animals not used in sacrifice to be poured on the ground. The chapter as a whole is to be assigned to H. At the same time it exhibits many marks of affinity with P, a phenomenon most easily explained by the supposition that older laws of H have been expanded and modified by later hands in the spirit of P. Clear instances of such revision may be seen in the references to “the door of the tent of meeting” (vv. 4, 5, 6, 9) and “the camp” (v. 3), as well as in vv. 6, 11, 12-14; vv. 15, 16 (prohibiting the eating of animals that die a natural death or are torn by beasts) differ formally from the preceding paragraphs, and are to be assigned to P. What remains after the excision of later additions, however, is not entirely uniform, and points to earlier editorial work on the part of the compiler of H. Thus vv. 3-7 reflect two points of view, vv. 3, 4 drawing a contrast between profane slaughter and sacrifice, while vv. 5-7 distinguish between sacrifices offered to Yahweh and those offered to demons.

Chap. xviii. contains laws on prohibited marriages (vv. 6-18) and various acts of unchastity (vv. 19-23) embedded in a paraenetic setting (vv. 1-5 and 24-30), the laws being given in the 2nd pers. sing., while the framework employs the 2nd pers. plural. With the exception of v. 21 (on Molech worship), which is here out of place, and has possibly been introduced from xx. 2-5, the chapter displays all the characteristics of H.

Chap. xix. is a collection of miscellaneous laws, partly moral, partly religious, of which the fundamental principle is stated in v. 2 (“Ye shall be holy”). The various laws are clearly defined by the formula “I am Yahweh,” or “I am Yahweh your God,” phrases which are especially characteristic of chaps. xviii.-xx. The first group of laws (vv. 3 f.) corresponds to the first table of the decalogue, while vv. 11-18 are analogous to the second table; vv. 5-8 (on peace-offerings) are obviously out of place here, and are possibly to be restored to the cognate passage xxii. 29 f., while the humanitarian provisions of vv. 9 and 10 (cf. xxiii. 22) have no connexion with the immediate context; similarly v. 20 (to which a later redactor has added vv. 21, 22, in accordance with vi. 6 f.) appears to be a fragment from a penal code; the passage resembles Exod. xxi. 7 ff., and the offence is clearly one against property, the omission of the punishment being possibly due to the redactor who added vv. 21, 22.

Chap. xx. Prohibitions against Molech worship, vv. 2-5, witchcraft, vv. 6 and 27, unlawful marriages and acts of unchastity, vv. 10-21. Like chap. xviii., the main body of laws is provided with a paraenetic setting, vv. 7, 8 and 22-24; it differs from that chapter, however, in prescribing the death penalty in each case for disobedience. Owing to the close resemblance between the two chapters, many critics have assumed that they are derived from the same source and that the latter chapter was added for the purpose of supplying the penalties. This view, however, is not borne out by a comparison of the two chapters, for four of the cases mentioned in chap. xviii. (vv. 7, 10, 17b, 18) are ignored in chap. xx., while the order and in part the terminology are also different; further, it is difficult on this view to explain why the two chapters are separated by chap. xix. A more probable explanation is that the compiler of H has drawn from two parallel, but independent, sources. Signs of revision are not lacking, especially in vv. 2-5, where vv. 4 f. are a later addition intended to reconcile the inconsistency of v. 2 with v. 3 (RH); v. 6, which is closely connected with xix. 31, appears to be less original than v. 27, and may be ascribed to the same hand as v. 3; v. 9 can hardly be in its original context—it would be more suitable after xxiv. 15. The paraenetic setting (vv. 7, 8 and 22-24) is to be assigned to the compiler of H, who doubtless prefaced the parallel version with the additional laws of vv. 2-6. Verses 25, 26 apparently formed the conclusion of a law on clean and unclean animals similar to that of chap. xi., and very probably mark the place where H’s regulations on that subject originally stood.

Chaps. xxi., xxii. A series of laws affecting the priests and offerings, viz. (1) regulations ensuring the holiness of (a) ordinary priests, xxi. 1-9, and (b) the chief priest, vv. 10-15; (2) a list of physical defects which exclude a priest from exercising his office, vv. 16-24; (3) the enjoyment of sacred offerings limited to (a) priests, if they are ceremonially clean, xxi. 1-9, and (b) members of a priestly family, vv. 10-16; (4) animals offered in sacrifice must be without blemish, vv. 17-25; (5) further regulations with regard to sacrifices, vv. 26-30, with a paraenetic conclusion, vv. 31-33.

These chapters present considerable difficulty to the literary critic; for while they clearly illustrate the application of the principle of “holiness,” and in the main exhibit the characteristic phraseology of H, they also display many striking points of contact with P and the later strata of P, which have been closely interwoven into the original laws. These phenomena can be best explained by the supposition that we have here a body of old laws which have been subjected to more than one revision. The nature of the subjects with which they deal is one that naturally appealed to the priestly schools, and owing to this fact the laws were especially liable to modification and expansion at the hands of later legislators who wished to bring them into conformity with later usage. Signs of such revision may be traced back to the compiler of H, but the evidence shows that the process must have been continued down to the latest period of editorial activity in connexion with P. To redactors of the school of P belong such phrases as “the sons of Aaron” (xxi. 1, 24, xxii. 2, 18), “the seed of Aaron” (xxi. 21, xxii. 4 and “thy seed,” v. 17; cf. xxii. 3), “the offerings of the Lord made by fire” (xxi. 6, 21, xxii. 22, 27), “the most holy things” (xxi. 22; cf. xxii. 3 ff. “holy things” only), “throughout their (or your) generations” (xxi. 7, xxii. 3), the references to the anointing of Aaron (xxi. 10, 12) and the Veil (xxi. 23), the introductory formulae (xxi. 1, 16 f., xxii. 1 f., 17 f., 26) and the subscription (xxi. 24). Apart from these redactional additions, chap. xxi. is to be ascribed to H, vv. 6 and 8 being possibly the work of RH. Most critics detect a stronger influence of P in chap. xxii., more especially in vv. 3-7 and 17-25, 29, 30; most probably these verses have been largely recast and expanded by later editors, but it is noticeable that they contain no mention of either sin- or trespass-offerings.

Chap. xxiii. A calendar of sacred seasons. The chapter consists of two main elements which can easily be distinguished from one another, the one being derived from P and the other from H. To the former belongs the fuller and more elaborate description of vv. 4-8, 21, 23-38; to the latter, vv. 9-20, 22, 39-44. Characteristic of the priestly calendar are (1) the enumeration of “holy convocations,” (2) the prohibition of all work, (3) the careful determination of the date by the day and month, (4) the mention of “the offerings made by fire to Yahweh,” and (5) the stereotyped form of the regulations. The older calendar, on the other hand, knows nothing of “holy convocations,” nor of abstinence from work; the time of the feasts, which are clearly connected with agriculture, is only roughly defined with reference to the harvest (cf. Exod. xxiii. 14 ff., xxxiv. 22; Deut. xvi. 9 ff.).

The calendar of P comprises (a) the Feast of Passover and the Unleavened Cakes, vv. 4-8; (b) a fragment of Pentecost, v. 21; (c) the Feast of Trumpets, vv. 23-25; (d) the Day of Atonement, vv. 26-32; and (e) the Feast of Tabernacles, vv. 33-36, with a subscription in vv. 37, 38. With these have been incorporated the older regulations of H on the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost, vv. 9-20, which have been retained in place of P’s account (cf. v. 21), and on the Feast of Tabernacles, vv. 39-44, the latter being clearly intended to supplement vv. 33-36. The hand of the redactor who combined the two elements may be seen partly in additions designed to accommodate the regulations of H to P (e.g. v. 39a, “on the fifteenth day of the seventh month,” and 39b, “and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest”), partly in the later expansions corresponding to later usage, vv. 12 f., 18, 19a, 21b, 41. Further, vv. 26-32 (on the Day of Atonement, cf. xvi.) are a later addition to the P sections.

Chap. xxiv. affords an interesting illustration of the manner in which the redactor of P has added later elements to the original code of H. For the first part of the chapter, with its regulations as to (a) the lamps in the Tabernacle, vv. 1-4, and (b) the Shewbread, vv. 5-9, is admittedly derived from P, vv. 1-4, forming a supplement to Exod. xxv. 31-40 (cf. xxvii. 20 f.) and Num. viii. 1-4, and vv. 5-9 to Exod. xxv. 30. The rest of the chapter contains old laws (vv. 15b-22) derived from H on blasphemy, manslaughter and injuries to the person, to which the redactor has added an historical setting (vv. 10-14, 23) as well as a few glosses.

Chap. xxv. lays down regulations for the observance of (a) the Sabbatical year, vv. 1-7, 19-22, and (b) the year of Jubilees, vv. 8-18, 23, and then applies the principle of redemption to (1) land and house property, vv. 24-34, and (2) persons, vv. 35-55. The rules for the Sabbatical year (vv. 1-7) are admittedly derived from H, and vv. 19-22 are also from the same source. Their present position after vv. 8-18 is due to the redactor who wished to apply the same rules to the year of Jubilee. But though the former of the two sections on the year of Jubilee (vv. 8-18, 23) exhibits undoubted signs of P, the traces of H are also sufficiently marked to warrant the conclusion that the latter code included laws relating to the year of Jubilee, and that these have been modified by RP and then connected with the regulations for the Sabbatical year. Signs of the redactor’s handiwork may be seen in vv. 9, 11-13 (the year of Jubilee treated as a fallow year) and 15, 16 (cf. the repetition of “ye shall not wrong one another,” vv. 14 and 17). Both on historical and on critical grounds, however, it is improbable that the principle of restitution underlying the regulations for the year of Jubilee was originally extended to persons in the earlier code. For it is difficult to harmonize the laws as to the release of Hebrew slaves with the other legislation on the same subject (Exod. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv.), while both the secondary position which they occupy in this chapter and their more elaborate and formal character point to a later origin for vv. 35-55. Hence these verses in the main must be assigned to RP. In this connexion it is noticeable that vv. 35-38, 39-40a, 43, 47, 53, 55, which show the characteristic marks of H, bear no special relation to the year of Jubilee, but merely inculcate a more humane treatment of those Israelites who are compelled by circumstances to sell themselves either to their brethren or to strangers. It is probable, therefore, that they form no part of the original legislation of the year of Jubilee, but were incorporated at a later period. The present form of vv. 24-34 is largely due to RP, who has certainly added vv. 32-34 (cities of the Levites) and probably vv. 29-31.

Chap. xxvi. The concluding exhortation. After reiterating commands to abstain from idolatry and to observe the Sabbath, vv. 1, 2, the chapter sets forth (a) the rewards of obedience, vv. 3-13, and (b) the penalties incurred by disobedience to the preceding laws, vv. 14-46. The discourse, which is spoken throughout in the name of Yahweh, is similar in character to Exod. xxiii. 20-33 and Deut. xxviii., more especially to the latter. That it forms an integral part of H is shown both by the recurrence of the same distinctive phraseology and by the emphasis laid on the same motives. At the same time it is hardly doubtful that the original discourse has been modified and expanded by later hands, especially in the concluding paragraphs. Thus vv. 34, 35, which refer back to xxv. 2 ff., interrupt the connexion and must be assigned to the priestly redactor, while vv. 40-45 display obvious signs of interpolation. With regard to the literary relation of this chapter with Ezekiel, it must be admitted that Ezekiel presents many striking parallels, and in particular makes use, in common with chap. xxvi., of several expressions which do not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament. But there are also points of difference both as regards phraseology and subject-matter, and in view of these latter it is impossible to hold that Ezekiel was either the author or compiler of this chapter.

Chap. xxvii. On the commutation of vows and tithes. The chapter as a whole must be assigned to a later stratum of P, for while vv. 2-25 (on vows) presuppose the year of Jubilee, the section on tithes, vv. 30-33, marks a later stage of development than Num. xviii. 21 ff. (P); vv. 26-29 (on firstlings and devoted things) are supplementary restrictions to vv. 2-25.

Literature.—Commentaries: Dillmann-Ryssel, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (1897); Driver and White, SBOT. Leviticus (English, 1898); B. Baentsch, Exod. Lev. u. Num. (HK, 1900); Bertholet, Leviticus (KHC, 1901). Criticism: The Introductions to the Old Testament by Kuenen, Holzinger, Driver, Cornill, König and the archaeological works of Benzinger and Nowack. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, &c. (1899); Kayser, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Isr. (1874); Klostermann, Zeitschrift für Luth. Theologie (1877); Horst, Lev. xvii.-xxvi. and Hezekiel (1881); Wurster, ZATW (1884); Baentsch, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz (1893); L. P. Paton, “The Relation of Lev. 20 to Lev. 17-19,” Hebraica (1894); “The Original Form of Leviticus,” JBL (1897, 1898); “The Holiness Code and Ezekiel,” Pres. and Ref. Review (1896); Carpenter, Composition of the Hexateuch (1902). Articles on Leviticus by G. F. Moore, Hastings’s Diet. Bib., and G. Harford Battersby, Ency. Bib.

(J. F. St.)

LEVY, AMY (1861-1889), English poetess and novelist, second daughter of Lewis Levy, was born at Clapham on the 10th of November 1861, and was educated at Newnham College, Cambridge. She showed a precocious aptitude for writing verse of exceptional merit, and in 1884 she published a volume of poems, A Minor Poet and Other Verse, some of the pieces in which had already been printed at Cambridge with the title Xantippe and Other Poems. The high level of this first publication was maintained in A London Plane Tree and Other Poems, a collection of lyrics published in 1889, in which the prevailing pessimism of the writer’s temperament was conspicuous. She had already in 1888 tried her hand at prose fiction in The Romance of a Shop, which was followed by Reuben Sachs, a powerful novel. She committed suicide on the 10th of September 1889.

LEVY, AUGUSTE MICHEL (1844-  ), French geologist, was born in Paris on the 7th of August 1844. He became inspector-general of mines, and director of the Geological Survey of France. He was distinguished for his researches on eruptive rocks, their microscopic structure and origin; and he early employed the polarizing microscope for the determination of minerals. In his many contributions to scientific journals he described the granulite group, and dealt with pegmatites, variolites, eurites, the ophites of the Pyrenees, the extinct volcanoes of Central France, gneisses, and the origin of crystalline schists. He wrote Structures et classification des roches éruptives (1889), but his more elaborate studies were carried on with F. Fouqué. Together they wrote on the artificial production of felspar, nepheline and other minerals, and also of meteorites, and produced Minéralogie micrographique (1879) and Synthèse des minéraux et des roches (1882). Levy also collaborated with A. Lacroix in Les Minéraux des roches (1888) and Tableau des minéraux des roches (1889).

LEVY (Fr. levée, from lever, Lat. levare, to lift, raise), the raising of money by the collection of an assessment, &c., a tax or compulsory contribution; also the collection of a body of men for military or other purposes. When all the able-bodied men of a nation are enrolled for service, the French term levée en masse, levy in mass, is frequently used.

LEWALD, FANNY (1811-1889), German author, was born at Königsberg in East Prussia on the 24th of March 1811, of Jewish parentage. When seventeen years of age she embraced Christianity, and after travelling in Germany, France and Italy, settled in 1845 at Berlin. Here, in 1854, she married the author, Adolf Wilhelm Theodor Stahr (1805-1876), and removed after his death in 1876 to Dresden, where she resided, engaged in literary work, until her death on the 5th of August 1889. Fanny Lewald is less remarkable for her writings, which are mostly sober, matter-of-fact works, though displaying considerable talent and culture, than for her championship of “women’s rights,” a question which she was practically the first German woman to take up, and for her scathing satire on the sentimentalism of the Gräfin Hahn Hahn. This authoress she ruthlessly attacked in the exquisite parody (Diogena, Roman von Iduna Gräfin H.... H.... (2nd ed., 1847). Among the best known of her novels are Klementine (1842); Prinz Louis Ferdinand (1849; 2nd ed., 1859); Das Mädchen von Hela (1860); Von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht (8 vols., 1863-1865); Benvenuto (1875), and Stella (1883; English by B. Marshall, 1884). Of her writings in defence of the emancipation of women Osterbriefe für die Frauen (1863) and Für und wider die Frauen (1870) are conspicuous. Her autobiography, Meine Lebensgeschichte (6 vols., 1861-1862), is brightly written and affords interesting glimpses of the literary life of her time.

A selection of her works was published under the title Gesammelte Schriften in 12 vols. (1870-1874). Cf. K. Frenzel, Erinnerungen und Strömungen (1890).

LEWANIKA (c. 1860-  ), paramount chief of the Barotse and subject tribes occupying the greater part of the upper Zambezi basin, was the twenty-second of a long line of rulers, whose founder invaded the Barotse valley about the beginning of the 17th century, and according to tradition was the son of a woman named Buya Mamboa by a god. The graves of successive ruling chiefs are to this day respected and objects of pilgrimage for purposes of ancestor worship. Lewanika was born on the upper Kabompo in troublous times, where his father—Letia, a son of a former ruler—lived in exile during the interregnum of a foreign dynasty (Makololo), which remained in possession from about 1830 to 1865, when the Makololo were practically exterminated in a night by a well-organized revolt. Once more masters of their own country, the Barotse invited Sepopa, an uncle of Lewanika, to rule over them. Eleven years of brutality and licence resulted in the tyrant’s expulsion and subsequent assassination, his place being taken by Ngwana-Wina, a nephew. Within a year abuse of power brought about this chief’s downfall (1877), and he was succeeded by Lobosi, who assumed the name of Lewanika in 1885. The early years of his reign were also stained by many acts of blood, until in 1884 the torture and murder of his own brother led to open rebellion, and it was only through extreme presence of mind that the chief escaped with his life into exile. His cousin, Akufuna or Tatela, was then proclaimed chief. It was during his brief reign that François Coillard, the eminent missionary, arrived at Lialui, the capital. The following year Lewanika, having collected his partisans, deposed the usurper and re-established his power. Ruthless revenge not unmixed with treachery characterized his return to power, but gradually the strong personality of the high-minded François Coillard so far influenced him for good that from about 1887 onward he ruled tolerantly and showed a consistent desire to better the condition of his people. In 1890 Lewanika, who two years previously had proposed to place himself under the protection of Great Britain, concluded a treaty with the British South Africa Company, acknowledging its supremacy and conceding to it certain mineral rights. In 1897 Mr R. T. Coryndon took up his position at Lialui as British agent, and the country to the east of 25° E. was thrown open to settlers, that to the west being reserved to the Barotse chief. In 1905 the king of Italy’s award in the Barotse boundary dispute with Portugal deprived Lewanika of half of his dominions, much of which had been ruled by his ancestors for many generations. In 1902 Lewanika attended the coronation of Edward VII. as a guest of the nation. His recognized heir was his eldest son Letia.

See [Barotse], and the works there cited, especially On the Threshold of Central Africa (London, 1897), by François Coillard.

(A. St. H. G.)

LEWES, CHARLES LEE (1740-1803), English actor, was the son of a hosier in London. After attending a school at Ambleside he returned to London, where he found employment as a postman; but about 1760 he went on the stage in the provinces, and some three years later began to appear in minor parts at Covent Garden Theatre. His first rôle of importance was that of “Young Marlow” in She Stoops to Conquer, at its production of that comedy in 1773, when he delivered an epilogue specially written for him by Goldsmith. He remained a member of the Covent Garden company till 1783, appearing in many parts, among which were “Fag” in The Rivals, which he “created,” and “Sir Anthony Absolute” in the same comedy. In 1783 he removed to Drury Lane, where he assumed the Shakespearian rôles of “Touchstone,” “Lucio” and “Falstaff.” In 1787 he left London for Edinburgh, where he gave recitations, including Cowper’s “John Gilpin.” For a short time in 1792 Lewes assisted Stephen Kemble in the management of the Dundee Theatre; in the following year he went to Dublin, but he was financially unsuccessful and suffered imprisonment for debt. He employed his time in compiling his Memoirs, a worthless production published after his death by his son. He was also the author of some poor dramatic sketches. Lewes died on the 23rd of July 1803. He was three times married; the philosopher, George Henry Lewes, was his grandson.

See John Genest, Some Account of the English Stage (Bath, 1832).

LEWES, GEORGE HENRY (1817-1878), British philosopher and literary critic, was born in London in 1817. He was a grandson of Charles Lee Lewes, the actor. He was educated in London, Jersey, Brittany, and finally at Dr Burney’s school in Greenwich. Having abandoned successively a commercial and a medical career, he seriously thought of becoming an actor, and between 1841 and 1850 appeared several times on the stage. Finally he devoted himself to literature, science and philosophy. As early as 1836 he belonged to a club formed for the study of philosophy, and had sketched out a physiological treatment of the philosophy of the Scottish school. Two years later he went to Germany, probably with the intention of studying philosophy. In 1840 he married a daughter of Swynfen Stevens Jervis (1798-1867), and during the next ten years supported himself by contributing to the quarterly and other reviews. These articles discuss a wide variety of subject, and, though often characterized by hasty impulse and imperfect study, betray a singularly acute critical judgment, enlightened by philosophic study. The most valuable are those on the drama, afterwards republished under the title Actors and Acting (1875). With this may be taken the volume on The Spanish Drama (1846). The combination of wide scholarship, philosophic culture and practical acquaintance with the theatre gives these essays a high place among the best efforts in English dramatic criticism. In 1845-1846 he published The Biographical History of Philosophy, an attempt to depict the life of philosophers as an ever-renewed fruitless labour to attain the unattainable. In 1847-1848 he made two attempts in the field of fiction—Ranthrope, and Rose, Blanche and Violet—which, though displaying considerable skill both in plot, construction and in characterization, have taken no permanent place in literature. The same is to be said of an ingenious attempt to rehabilitate Robespierre (1849). In 1850 he collaborated with Thornton Leigh Hunt in the foundation of the Leader, of which he was the literary editor. In 1853 he republished under the title of Comte’s Philosophy of the Sciences a series of papers which had appeared in that journal. In 1851 he became acquainted with Miss Evans (George Eliot) and in 1854 left his wife. Subsequently he lived with Miss Evans as her husband (see [Eliot, George]).

The culmination of Lewes’s work in prose literature is the Life of Goethe (1855), probably the best known of his writings. Lewes’s many-sidedness of mind, and his combination of scientific with literary tastes, eminently fitted him to appreciate the large nature and the wide-ranging activity of the German poet. The high position this work has taken in Germany itself, notwithstanding the boldness of its criticism and the unpopularity of some of its views (e.g. on the relation of the second to the first part of Faust), is a sufficient testimony to its general excellence. From about 1853 Lewes’s writings show that he was occupying himself with scientific and more particularly biological work. He may be said to have always manifested a distinctly scientific bent in his writings, and his closer devotion to science was but the following out of early impulses. Considering that he had not had the usual course of technical training, these studies are a remarkable testimony to the penetration of his intellect. The most important of these essays are collected in the volumes Seaside Studies (1858), Physiology of Common Life (1859), Studies in Animal Life (1862), and Aristotle, a Chapter from the History of Science (1864). They are much more than popular expositions of accepted scientific truths. They contain able criticisms of authorized ideas, and embody the results of individual research and individual reflection. He made a number of impressive suggestions, some of which have since been accepted by physiologists. Of these the most valuable is that now known as the doctrine of the functional indifference of the nerves—that what are known as the specific energies of the optic, auditory and other nerves are simply differences in their mode of action due to the differences of the peripheral structures or sense-organs with which they are connected. This idea was subsequently arrived at independently by Wundt (Physiologische Psychologie, 2nd ed., p. 321). In 1865, on the starting of the Fortnightly Review, Lewes became its editor, but he retained the post for less than two years, when he was succeeded by John Morley. This date marks the transition from more strictly scientific to philosophic work. He had from early youth cherished a strong liking for philosophic studies; one of his earliest essays was an appreciative account of Hegel’s Aesthetics. Coming under the influence of positivism as unfolded both in Comte’s own works and in J. S. Mill’s System of Logic, he abandoned all faith in the possibility of metaphysic, and recorded this abandonment in the above-mentioned History of Philosophy. Yet he did not at any time give an unqualified adhesion to Comte’s teachings, and with wider reading and reflection his mind moved away further from the positivist standpoint. In the preface to the third edition of his History of Philosophy he avowed a change in this direction, and this movement is still more plainly discernible in subsequent editions of the work. The final outcome of this intellectual progress is given to us in The Problems of Life and Mind, which may be regarded as the crowning work of his life. His sudden death on the 28th of November 1878 cut short the work, yet it is complete enough to allow us to judge of the author’s matured conceptions on biological, psychological and metaphysical problems. Of his three sons only one, Charles (1843-1891), survived him; in the first London County Council Election (1888) he was elected for St Pancras; he was also much interested in the Hampstead Heath extension.

Philosophy.—The first two volumes on The Foundations of a Creed lay down what Lewes regarded as the true principles of philosophizing. He here seeks to effect a rapprochement between metaphysic and science. He is still so far a positivist as to pronounce all inquiry into the ultimate nature of things fruitless. What matter, form, spirit are in themselves is a futile question that belongs to the sterile region of “metempirics.” But philosophical questions may be so stated as to be susceptible of a precise solution by scientific method. Thus, since the relation of subject to object falls within our experience, it is a proper matter for philosophic investigation. It may be questioned whether Lewes is right in thus identifying the methods of science and philosophy. Philosophy is not a mere extension of scientific knowledge; it is an investigation of the nature and validity of the knowing process itself. In any case Lewes cannot be said to have done much to aid in the settlement of properly philosophical questions. His whole treatment of the question of the relation of subject to object is vitiated by a confusion between the scientific truth that mind and body coexist in the living organism and the philosophic truth that all knowledge of objects implies a knowing subject. In other words, to use Shadworth Hodgson’s phrase, he mixes up the question of the genesis of mental forms with the question of their nature (see Philosophy of Reflexion, ii. 40-58). Thus he reaches the “monistic” doctrine that mind and matter are two aspects of the same existence by attending simply to the parallelism between psychical and physical processes given as a fact (or a probable fact) of our experience, and by leaving out of account their relation as subject and object in the cognitive act. His identification of the two as phases of one existence is open to criticism, not only from the point of view of philosophy, but from that of science. In his treatment of such ideas as “sensibility,” “sentience” and the like, he does not always show whether he is speaking of physical or of psychical phenomena. Among the other properly philosophic questions discussed in these two volumes the nature of the casual relation is perhaps the one which is handled with most freshness and suggestiveness. The third volume, The Physical Basis of Mind, further develops the writer’s views on organic activities as a whole. He insists strongly on the radical distinction between organic and inorganic processes, and on the impossibility of ever explaining the former by purely mechanical principles. With respect to the nervous system, he holds that all its parts have one and the same elementary property, namely, sensibility. Thus sensibility belongs as much to the lower centres of the spinal cord as to the brain, contributing in this more elementary form elements to the “subconscious” region of mental life. The higher functions of the nervous system, which make up our conscious mental life, are merely more complex modifications of this fundamental property of nerve substance. Closely related to this doctrine is the view that the nervous organism acts as a whole, that particular mental operations cannot be referred to definitely circumscribed regions of the brain, and that the hypothesis of nervous activity passing in the centre by an isolated pathway from one nerve-cell to another is altogether illusory. By insisting on the complete coincidence between the regions of nerve-action and sentience, and by holding that these are but different aspects of one thing, he is able to attack the doctrine of animal and human automatism, which affirms that feeling or consciousness is merely an incidental concomitant of nerve-action and in no way essential to the chain of physical events. Lewes’s views in psychology, partly opened up in the earlier volumes of the Problems, are more fully worked out in the last two volumes (3rd series). He discusses the method of psychology with much insight. He claims against Comte and his followers a place for introspection in psychological research. In addition to this subjective method there must be an objective, which consists partly in a reference to nervous conditions and partly in the employment of sociological and historical data. Biological knowledge, or a consideration of the organic conditions, would only help us to explain mental functions, as feeling and thinking; it would not assist us to understand differences of mental faculty as manifested in different races and stages of human development. The organic conditions of these differences will probably for ever escape detection. Hence they can be explained only as the products of the social environment. This idea of dealing with mental phenomena in their relation to social and historical conditions is probably Lewes’s most important contribution to psychology. Among other points which he emphasizes is the complexity of mental phenomena. Every mental state is regarded as compounded of three factors in different proportions—namely, a process of sensible affection, of logical grouping and of motor impulse. But Lewes’s work in psychology consists less in any definite discoveries than in the inculcation of a sound and just method. His biological training prepared him to view mind as a complex unity, in which the various functions interact one on the other, and of which the highest processes are identical with and evolved out of the lower. Thus the operations of thought, “or the logic of signs,” are merely a more complicated form of the elementary operations of sensation and instinct or “the logic of feeling.” The whole of the last volume of the Problems may be said to be an illustration of this position. It is a valuable repository of psychological facts, many of them drawn from the more obscure regions of mental life and from abnormal experience, and is throughout suggestive and stimulating. To suggest and to stimulate the mind, rather than to supply it with any complete system of knowledge, may be said to be Lewes’s service in philosophy. The exceptional rapidity and versatility of his intelligence seems to account at once for the freshness in his way of envisaging the subject-matter of philosophy and psychology, and for the want of satisfactory elaboration and of systematic co-ordination.

(J. S.; X.)

LEWES, a market-town and municipal borough and the county town of Sussex, England, in the Lewes parliamentary division, 50 m. S. from London by the London, Brighton & South Coast railway. Pop. (1901) 11,249. It is picturesquely situated on the slope of a chalk down falling to the river Ouse. Ruins of the old castle, supposed to have been founded by King Alfred and rebuilt by William de Warenne shortly after the Conquest, rise from the height. There are two mounds which bore keeps, an uncommon feature. The castle guarded the pass through the downs formed by the valley of the Ouse. In one of the towers is the collection of the Sussex Archaeological Society. St Michael’s church is without architectural merit, but contains old brasses and monuments; St Anne’s church is a transitional Norman structure; St Thomas-at-Cliffe is Perpendicular; St John’s, Southover, of mixed architecture, preserves some early Norman portions, and has some relics of the Warenne family. In the grounds of the Cluniac priory of St Pancras, founded in 1078, the leaden coffins of William de Warenne and Gundrada his wife were dug up during an excavation for the railway in 1845. There is a free grammar school dating from 1512, and among the other public buildings are the town hall and corn exchange, county hall, prison, and the Fitzroy memorial library. The industries include the manufacture of agricultural implements, brewing, tanning, and iron and brass founding. The municipal borough is under a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. Area, 1042 acres.

The many neolithic and bronze implements that have been discovered, and the numerous tumuli and earthworks which surround Lewes, indicate its remote origin. The town Lewes (Loewas, Loewen, Leswa, Laquis, Latisaquensis) was in the royal demesne of the Saxon kings, from whom it received the privilege of a market. Æthelstan established two royal mints there, and by the reign of Edward the Confessor, and probably before, Lewes was certainly a borough. William I. granted the whole barony of Lewes, including the revenue arising from the town, to William de Warenne, who converted an already existing fortification into a place of residence. His descendants continued to hold the barony until the beginning of the 14th century. In default of male issue, it then passed to the earl of Arundel, with whose descendants it remained until 1439, when it was divided between the Norfolks, Dorsets and Abergavennys. By 1086 the borough had increased 30% in value since the beginning of the reign, and its importance as a port and market-town is evident from Domesday. A gild merchant seems to have existed at an early date. The first mention of it is in a charter of Reginald de Warenne, about 1148, by which he restored to the burgesses the privileges they had enjoyed in the time of his grandfather and father, but of which they had been deprived. In 1595 a “Fellowship” took the place of the old gild and in conjunction with two constables governed the town until the beginning of the 18th century. The borough seal probably dates from the 14th century. Lewes was incorporated by royal charter in 1881. The town returned two representatives to parliament from 1295 until deprived of one member in 1867. It was disfranchised in 1885. Earl Warenne and his descendants held the fairs and markets from 1066. In 1792 the fair-days were the 6th of May, Whit-Tuesday, the 26th of July (for wool), and the 2nd of October. The market-day was Saturday. Fairs are now held on the 6th of May for horses and cattle, the 20th of July for wool, and the 21st and 28th of September for Southdown sheep. A corn-market is held every Tuesday, and a stock-market every alternate Monday. The trade in wool has been important since the 14th century.

Lewes was the scene of the battle fought on the 14th of May 1264 between Henry III. and Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. Led by the king and by his son, the future king Edward I., the royalists left Oxford, took Northampton and drove Montfort from Rochester into London. Then, harassed on the route by their foes, they marched through Kent into Sussex and took up their quarters at Lewes, a stronghold of the royalist Earl Warenne. Meanwhile, reinforced by a number of Londoners, Earl Simon left London and reached Fletching, about 9 m. north of Lewes, on the 13th of May. Efforts at reconciliation having failed he led his army against the town, which he hoped to surprise, early on the following day. His plan was to direct his main attack against the priory of St Pancras, which sheltered the king and his brother Richard, earl of Cornwall, king of the Romans, while causing the enemy to believe that his principal objective was the castle, where Prince Edward was. But the surprise was not complete and the royalists rushed from the town to meet the enemy in the open field. Edward led his followers against the Londoners, who were gathered around the standard of Montfort, put them to flight, pursued them for several miles, and killed a great number of them. Montfort’s ruse, however, had been successful. He was not with his standard as his foes thought, but with the pick of his men he attacked Henry’s followers and took prisoner both the king and his brother. Before Edward returned from his chase the earl was in possession of the town. In its streets the prince strove to retrieve his fortunes, but in vain. Many of his men perished in the river, but others escaped, one band, consisting of Earl Warenne and others, taking refuge in Pevensey Castle. Edward himself took sanctuary and on the following day peace was made between the king and the earl.

LEWES, a town in Sussex county, Delaware, U.S.A., in the S.E. part of the state, on Delaware Bay. Pop. (1910), 2158. Lewes is served by the Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington (Pennsylvania System), and the Maryland, Delaware & Virginia railways. Its harbour is formed by the Delaware Breakwater, built by the national government and completed in 1869, and 2¼ m. above it another breakwater was completed in December 1901 by the government. The cove between them forms a harbour of refuge of about 550 acres. At the mouth of Delaware Bay, about 2 m. below Lewes, is the Henlopen Light, one of the oldest lighthouses in America. The Delaware Bay pilots make their headquarters at Lewes. Lewes has a large trade with northern cities in fruits and vegetables, and is a subport of entry of the Wilmington Customs District. The first settlement on Delaware soil by Europeans was made near here in 1631 by Dutch colonists, sent by a company organized in Holland in the previous year by Samuel Blommaert, Killian van Rensselaer, David Pieterszen de Vries and others. The settlers called the place Zwaanendael, valley of swans. The settlement was soon entirely destroyed by the Indians, and a second body of settlers whom de Vries, who had been made director of the colony, brought in 1632 remained for only two years. The fact of the settlement is important; because of it the English did not unite the Delaware country with Maryland, for the Maryland Charter of 1632 restricted colonization to land within the prescribed boundaries, uncultivated and either uninhabited or inhabited only by Indians. In 1658 the Dutch established an Indian trading post, and in 1659 erected a fort at Zwaanendael. After the annexation of the Delaware counties to Pennsylvania in 1682, its name was changed to Lewes, after the town of that name in Sussex, England. It was pillaged by French pirates in 1698. One of the last naval battles of the War of Independence was fought in the bay near Lewes on the 8th of April 1782, when the American privateer “Hyder Ally” (16), commanded by Captain Joshua Barnes (1759-1818), defeated and captured the British sloop “General Monk” (20), which had been an American privateer, the “General Washington,” had been captured by Admiral Arbuthnot’s squadron in 1780, and was now purchased by the United States government and, as the “General Washington,” was commanded by Captain Barnes in 1782-1784. In March 1813 the town was bombarded by a British frigate.

See the “History of Lewes” in the Papers of the Historical Society of Delaware, No. xxxviii. (Wilmington, 1903); and J. T. Scharf, History of Delaware (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1888).

LEWIS, SIR GEORGE CORNEWALL, Bart. (1806-1863), English statesman and man of letters, was born in London on the 21st of April 1806. His father, Thomas F. Lewis, of Harpton Court, Radnorshire, after holding subordinate office in various administrations, became a poor-law commissioner, and was made a baronet in 1846. Young Lewis was educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, where in 1828 he took a first-class in classics and a second-class in mathematics. He then entered the Middle Temple, and was called to the bar in 1831. In 1833 he undertook his first public work as one of the commissioners to inquire into the condition of the poor Irish residents in the United Kingdom.[1] In 1834 Lord Althorp included him in the commission to inquire into the state of church property and church affairs generally in Ireland. To this fact we owe his work on Local Disturbances in Ireland, and the Irish Church Question (London, 1836), in which he condemned the existing connexion between church and state, proposed a state provision for the Catholic clergy, and maintained the necessity of an efficient workhouse organization. During this period Lewis’s mind was much occupied with the study of language. Before leaving college he had published some observations on Whately’s doctrine of the predicables, and soon afterwards he assisted Thirlwall and Hare in starting the Philological Museum. Its successor, the Classical Museum, he also supported by occasional contributions. In 1835 he published an Essay on the Origin and Formation of the Romance Languages (re-edited in 1862), the first effective criticism in England of Raynouard’s theory of a uniform romance tongue, represented by the poetry of the troubadours. He also compiled a glossary of provincial words used in Herefordshire and the adjoining counties. But the most important work of this earlier period was one to which his logical and philological tastes contributed. The Remarks on the Use and Abuse of some Political Terms (London, 1832) may have been suggested by Bentham’s Book of Parliamentary Fallacies, but it shows all that power of clear sober original thinking which marks his larger and later political works. Moreover, he translated Boeckh’s Public Economy of Athens and Müller’s History of Greek Literature, and he assisted Tufnell in the translation of Müller’s Dorians. Some time afterwards he edited a text of the Fables of Babrius. While his friend Hayward conducted the Law Magazine, he wrote in it frequently on such subjects as secondary punishments and the penitentiary system. In 1836, at the request of Lord Glenelg, he accompanied John Austin to Malta, where they spent nearly two years reporting on the condition of the island and framing a new code of laws. One leading object of both commissioners was to associate the Maltese in the responsible government of the island. On his return to England Lewis succeeded his father as one of the principal poor-law commissioners. In 1841 appeared the Essay on the Government of Dependencies, a systematic statement and discussion of the various relations in which colonies may stand towards the mother country. In 1844 Lewis married Lady Maria Theresa Lister, sister of Lord Clarendon, and a lady of literary tastes. Much of their married life was spent in Kent House, Knightsbridge. They had no children. In 1847 Lewis resigned his office. He was then returned for the county of Hereford, and Lord John Russell appointed him secretary to the Board of Control, but a few months afterwards he became under-secretary to the Home Office. In this capacity he introduced two important bills, one for the abolition of turnpike trusts and the management of highways by a mixed county board, the other for the purpose of defining and regulating the law of parochial assessment. In 1850 he succeeded Hayter as financial secretary to the treasury. About this time, also, appeared his Essay on the Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion. On the dissolution of parliament which followed the resignation of Lord John Russell’s ministry in 1852, Lewis was defeated for Herefordshire and then for Peterborough. Excluded from parliament he accepted the editorship of the Edinburgh Review, and remained editor until 1855. During this period he served on the Oxford commission, and on the commission to inquire into the government of London. But its chief fruits were the Treatise on the Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, and the Enquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History,[2] in which he vigorously attacked the theory of epic lays and other theories on which Niebuhr’s reconstruction of that history had proceeded. In 1855 Lewis succeeded his father in the baronetcy. He was at once elected member for the Radnor boroughs, and Lord Palmerston made him chancellor of the exchequer. He had a war loan to contract and heavy additional taxation to impose, but his industry, method and clear vision carried him safely through. After the change of ministry in 1859 Sir George became home secretary under Lord Palmerston, and in 1861, much against his wish, he succeeded Sidney Herbert (Lord Herbert of Lea) at the War Office. The closing years of his life were marked by increasing intellectual vigour. In 1859 he published an able Essay on Foreign Jurisdiction and the Extradition of Criminals, a subject to which the attempt on Napoleon’s life, the discussions on the Conspiracy Bill, and the trial of Bernard, had drawn general attention. He advocated the extension of extradition treaties, and condemned the principal idea of Weltrechtsordnung which Mohl of Heidelberg had proposed. His two latest works were the Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, in which, without professing any knowledge of Oriental languages, he applied a sceptical analysis to the ambitious Egyptology of Bunsen; and the Dialogue on the Best Form of Government, in which, under the name of Crito, the author points out to the supporters of the various systems that there is no one abstract government which is the best possible for all times and places. An essay on the Characteristics of Federal, National, Provincial and Municipal Government does not seem to have been published. Sir George died in April 1863. A marble bust by Weekes stands in Westminster Abbey.

Lewis was a man of mild and affectionate disposition, much beloved by a large circle of friends, among whom were Sir E. Head, the Grotes, the Austins, Lord Stanhope, J. S. Mill, Dean Milman, the Duff Gordons. In public life he was distinguished, as Lord Aberdeen said, “for candour, moderation, love of truth.” He had a passion for the systematic acquirement of knowledge, and a keen and sound critical faculty. His name has gone down to history as that of a many-sided man, sound in judgment, unselfish in political life, and abounding in practical good sense.

A reprint from the Edinburgh Review of his long series of papers on the Administration of Great Britain appeared in 1864, and his Letters to various Friends (1870) were edited by his brother Gilbert, who succeeded him in the baronetcy.

[1] See the Abstract of Final Report of Commissioners of Irish Poor Enquiry, &c., by G. C. Lewis and N. Senior (1837).

[2] Translated into German by Liebrecht (Hanover, 1858).

LEWIS, HENRY CARVILL (1853-1888), American geologist, was born in Philadelphia on the 16th of November 1853. Educated in the university of Pennsylvania he took the degree of M.A. in 1876. He became attached to the Geological Survey of Pennsylvania in 1879, serving for three years as a volunteer member, and during this term he became greatly interested in the study of glacial phenomena. In 1880 he was chosen professor of mineralogy in the Philadelphia academy of natural sciences, and in 1883 he was appointed to the chair of geology in Haverford College, Pennsylvania. During the winters of 1885 to 1887 he studied petrology under H. F. Rosenbusch at Heidelberg, and during the summers he investigated the glacial geology of northern Europe and the British Islands. His observations in North America, where he had studied under Professor G. F. Wright, Professor T. C. Chamberlin and Warren Upham, had demonstrated the former extension of land-ice, and the existence of great terminal moraines. In 1884 his Report on the Terminal Moraine in Pennsylvania and New York was published: a work containing much information on the limits of the North American ice-sheet. In Britain he sought to trace in like manner the southern extent of the terminal moraines formed by British ice-sheets, but before his conclusions were matured he died at Manchester on the 21st of July 1888. The results of his observations were published in 1894 entitled Papers and Notes on the Glacial Geology of Great Britain and Ireland, edited by Dr H. W. Crosskey.

See “Prof. Henry Carvill Lewis and his Work in Glacial Geology,” by Warren Upham, Amer. Geol. vol. ii. (Dec. 1888) p. 371, with portrait.

LEWIS, JOHN FREDERICK (1805-1876), British painter, son of F. C. Lewis, engraver, was born in London. He was elected in 1827 associate of the Society of Painters in Water Colours, of which he became full member in 1829 and president in 1855; he resigned in 1858, and was made associate of the Royal Academy in 1859 and academician in 1865. Much of his earlier life was spent in Spain, Italy and the East, but he returned to England in 1851 and for the remainder of his career devoted himself almost exclusively to Eastern subjects, which he treated with extraordinary care and minuteness of finish, and with much beauty of technical method. He is represented by a picture, “Edfou: Upper Egypt,” in the National Gallery of British Art. He achieved equal eminence in both oil and water-colour painting.

LEWIS, MATTHEW GREGORY (1775-1818), English romance-writer and dramatist, often referred to as “Monk” Lewis, was born in London on the 9th of July 1775. He was educated for a diplomatic career at Westminster school and at Christ Church, Oxford, spending most of his vacations abroad in the study of modern languages; and in 1794 he proceeded to the Hague as attaché to the British embassy. His stay there lasted only a few months, but was marked by the composition, in ten weeks, of his romance Ambrosio, or the Monk, which was published in the summer of the following year. It immediately achieved celebrity; but some passages it contained were of such a nature that about a year after its appearance an injunction to restrain its sale was moved for and a rule nisi obtained. Lewis published a second edition from which he had expunged, as he thought, all the objectionable passages, but the work still remains of such a character as almost to justify the severe language in which Byron in English Bards and Scotch Reviewers addresses—

Whatever its demerits, ethical or aesthetic, may have been, The Monk did not interfere with the reception of Lewis into the best English society; he was favourably noticed at court, and almost as soon as he came of age he obtained a seat in the House of Commons as member for Hindon, Wilts. After some years, however, during which he never addressed the House, he finally withdrew from a parliamentary career. His tastes lay wholly in the direction of literature, and The Castle Spectre (1796, a musical drama of no great literary merit, but which enjoyed a long popularity on the stage), The Minister (a translation from Schiller’s Kabale u. Liebe), Rolla (1797, a translation from Kotzebue), with numerous other operatic and tragic pieces, appeared in rapid succession. The Bravo of Venice, a romance translated from the German, was published in 1804; next to The Monk it is the best known work of Lewis. By the death of his father he succeeded to a large fortune, and in 1815 embarked for the West Indies to visit his estates; in the course of this tour, which lasted four months, the Journal of a West Indian Proprietor, published posthumously in 1833, was written. A second visit to Jamaica was undertaken in 1817, in order that he might become further acquainted with, and able to ameliorate, the condition of the slave population; the fatigues to which he exposed himself in the tropical climate brought on a fever which terminated fatally on the homeward voyage on the 14th of May 1818.

The Life and Correspondence of M. G. Lewis, in two volumes, was published in 1839.

LEWIS, MERIWETHER (1774-1809), American explorer, was born near Charlottesville, Virginia, on the 18th of August 1774. In 1794 he volunteered with the Virginia troops called out to suppress the “Whisky Insurrection,” was commissioned as ensign in the regular United States army in 1795, served with distinction under General Anthony Wayne in the campaigns against the Indians, and attained the rank of captain in 1797. From 1801 to 1803 he was the private secretary of President Jefferson. On the 18th of January 1803 Jefferson sent a confidential message to Congress urging the development of trade with the Indians of the Missouri Valley and recommending that an exploring party be sent into this region, notwithstanding the fact that it was then held by Spain and owned by France. Congress appropriated funds for the expedition, and the president instructed Lewis to proceed to the head-waters of the Missouri river and thence across the mountains to the Pacific Ocean. With Jefferson’s consent Lewis chose as a companion Lieut. William Clark, an old friend and army comrade. The preparations were made under the orders of the War Department, and, until the news arrived that France had sold Louisiana to the United States, they were conducted in secrecy. Lewis spent some time in Philadelphia, gaining additional knowledge of the natural sciences and learning the use of instruments for determining positions; and late in 1803 he and Clark, with twenty-nine men from the army, went into winter quarters near St Louis, where the men were subjected to rigid training. On the 14th of May 1804 the party, with sixteen additional members, who, however, were to go only a part of the way, started up the Missouri river in three boats, and by the 2nd of November had made the difficult ascent of the stream as far as 47° 21′ N. lat., near the site of the present Bismarck, North Dakota, where, among the Mandan Indians, they passed the second winter. Early in April 1805 the ascent of the Missouri was continued as far as the three forks of the river, which were named the Jefferson, the Gallatin and the Madison. The Jefferson was then followed to its source in the south-western part of what is now the state of Montana. Procuring a guide and horses from the Shoshone Indians, the party pushed westward through the Rocky Mountains in September, and on the 7th of October embarked in canoes on a tributary of the Columbia river, the mouth of which they reached on the 15th of November. They had travelled upwards of 4000 m. from their starting-point, had encountered various Indian tribes never before seen by whites, had made valuable scientific collections and observations, and were the first explorers to reach the Pacific by crossing the continent north of Mexico. After spending the winter on the Pacific coast they started on the 23rd of March 1806 on their return journey, and, after crossing the divide, Lewis with one party explored Maria’s river, and Clark with another the Yellowstone. On the 12th of August the two explorers reunited near the junction of the Yellowstone and the Missouri, and on the 23rd of September reached St Louis. In spite of exposure, hardship and peril only one member of the party died, and only one deserted. No later feat of exploration, perhaps, in any quarter of the globe has exceeded this in romantic interest. The expedition was commemorated by the Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition at Portland, Oregon, in 1905. The leaders and men of the exploring party were rewarded with liberal grants of land from the public domain, Lewis receiving 1500 acres; and in March 1807 Lewis was made governor of the northern part of the territory obtained from France in 1803, which had been organized as the Louisiana Territory. He performed the duties of this office with great efficiency, but it is said that in the unwonted quiet of his new duties, his mind, always subject to melancholy, became unbalanced, and that while on his way to Washington he committed suicide about 60 m. south-west of Nashville, Tennessee, on the 11th of October 1809. It is not definitely known, however, whether he actually committed suicide or was murdered.

Bibliography.—Jefferson’s Message from the President of the United States, Communicating Discoveries made in Exploring the Missouri, Red River and Washita by Captains Lewis and Clark, Dr Sibley and Mr Dunbar (Washington, 1806, and subsequent editions) is the earliest account, containing the reports sent back by the explorers in the winter of 1804-1805. Patrick Gass’s Journal of the Voyages and Travels of a Corps of Discovery under the Command of Capt. Lewis and Capt. Clark (Pittsburg, 1807) is the account of a sergeant in the party. Biddle and Allen’s History of the Expedition under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clark (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1814) is a condensation of the original journals. There are numerous reprints of this work, the best being that of Elliott Coues (4 vols., New York, 1893), which contains additions from the original manuscripts and a new chapter, in the style of Biddle, inserted as though a part of the original text. As a final authority consult R. G. Thwaites (ed.), The Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition (8 vols., New York, 1904-1905), containing all the known literary records of the expedition. For popular accounts see W. R. Lighton, Lewis and Clark (Boston, 1901); O. D. Wheeler, The Trail of Lewis and Clark (2 vols., New York, 1904); and Noah Brooks (ed.), First across the Continent: Expedition of Lewis and Clark (New York, 1901).

LEWISBURG, a borough and the county-seat of Union county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., on the W. bank of West Branch of the Susquehanna river, about 50 m. N. of Harrisburg. Pop. (1900) 3457 (60 foreign-born); (1910) 3081. It is served by the Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia & Reading railways. It is the seat of Bucknell University (coeducational), opened in 1846 as the university of Lewisburg and renamed in 1886 in honour of William Bucknell (1809-1890), a liberal benefactor. The university comprises a College of Liberal Arts, an Academy for Young Men, an Institute for Young Women, and a School of Music, and in 1908-1909 had 50 instructors and 775 students, of whom 547 were in the College of Liberal Arts. The city is situated in a farming region, and has various manufactures, including flour, lumber, furniture, woollens, nails, foundry products and carriages. Lewisburg (until about 1805 called Derrstown) was founded and laid out in 1785 by Ludwig Derr, a German, and was chartered as a borough in 1812.

LEWISHAM, a south-eastern metropolitan borough of London, England, bounded N.W. by Deptford, N.E. by Greenwich, E. by Woolwich, and W. by Camberwell, and extending S. to the boundary of the county of London. Pop. (1901) 127,495. Its area is for the most part occupied by villas. It includes the districts of Blackheath and Lee in the north, Hither Green, Catford and Brockley in the central parts, and Forest Hill and part of Sydenham in the south-west. In the districts last named well-wooded hills rise above 300 ft., and this is an especially favoured residential quarter, its popularity being formerly increased by the presence of medicinal springs, discovered in 1640, on Sydenham Common. Towards the south, in spite of the constant extension of building, there are considerable tracts of ground uncovered, apart from public grounds. In the north the borough includes the greater part of Blackheath (q.v.), an open common of considerable historical interest. The other principal pleasure grounds are Hilly Fields (46 acres) and Ladywell Recreation Grounds (46 acres) in the north-west part of the borough; and at Sydenham (but outside the boundary of the county of London) is the Crystal Palace. Among institutions are the Horniman Museum, Forest Hill (1901); Morden’s College, on the south of Blackheath, founded at the close of the 17th century by Sir John Morden for Turkey merchants who were received as pensioners, and subsequently extended in scope; numerous schools in the same locality; and the Park Fever Hospital, Hither Green. The parliamentary borough of Lewisham returns one member. The borough council consists of a mayor, 7 aldermen and 42 councillors. Area, 7014.4 acres.

LEWISTON, a city of Androscoggin county, Maine, U.S.A., on the Androscoggin river, opposite Auburn, with which it is connected by four steel bridges, and about 36 m. N.E. of Portland. Pop. (1900) 23,761, of whom 9316 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 26,247. It is served by the Maine Central, the Grand Trunk, the Portland & Rumford Falls and the Lewiston, Augusta & Waterville (electric) railways. The surrounding country is hilly and the river is picturesque; in the vicinity there are many lakes and ponds abounding in salmon and trout. The Maine fish hatchery is on Lake Auburn, 3 m. above the city. Lewiston is the seat of Bates College, a non-sectarian institution, which grew out of the Maine State Seminary (chartered in 1855), and was chartered in 1864 under its present name, adopted in honour of Benjamin E. Bates (d. 1877), a liberal benefactor. In 1908-1909 the college had 25 instructors and 440 students, and its library contained 34,000 volumes. The campus of the college is about 1 m. from the business portion of Lewiston and covers 50 acres; among the college buildings are an auditorium (1909) given by W. Scott Libbey of Lewiston, and the Libbey Forum for the use of the three literary societies and the two Christian associations of the college. The literary societies give excellent training in forensics. The matriculation pledge requires from male students total abstinence from intoxicants as a condition of membership. There are no secret fraternities. From the beginning women have been admitted on the same terms as men. The Cobb Divinity School (Free Baptist), which was founded at Parsonfield, Maine, in 1840 as a department of Parsonfield Seminary, and was situated in 1842-1844 at Dracut, Massachusetts, in 1844-1854 at Whitestown, New York, and in 1854-1870 at New Hampton, New Hampshire, was removed to Lewiston in 1870 and became a department (known as Bates Theological Seminary until 1888) of Bates College, with which it was merged in 1908. Lewiston has a fine city hall, a Carnegie library and a public park of 10½ acres, with a bronze soldiers’ monument by Franklin Simmons, who was born in 1839 at Webster near Lewiston, and is known for his statues of Roger Williams, William King, Francis H. Pierpont and U. S. Grant in the national Capitol, and for “Grief” and “History” on the Peace Monument at Washington. In Lewiston are the Central Maine General Hospital (1888), the Sisters’ Hospital (1888), under the charge of the French Catholic Sisters of Charity, a home for aged women, a young women’s home and the Hesley Asylum for boys. The Shrine Building (Kora Temple), dedicated in 1909, is the headquarters of the Shriners of the state. The river at Lewiston breaks over a ledge of mica-schist and gneiss, the natural fall of 40 ft. having been increased to more than 50 ft. by a strong granite dam; and 3 m. above the city at Deer Rips a cement dam furnishes 10,000 horse-power. The water-power thus obtained is distributed by canals from the nearer dam and transmitted by wire from the upper dam. The manufacture of cotton goods is the principal industry, and in 1905 the product of the city’s cotton mills was valued at about one-third of that of the mills of the whole state. Among other industries are the manufacture of woollen goods, shirts, dry-plates, carriages, spools and bobbins, and boots and shoes, and the dyeing and finishing of textiles. The total factory product in 1905 was valued at $8,527,649. The municipality owns its water works and electric lighting plant. Lewiston was settled in 1770, incorporated as a township in 1795 and chartered as a city in 1861. It was the home of Nelson Dingley (1832-1899), who from 1856 until his death controlled the Lewiston Journal. He was governor of the state in 1874-1876, Republican representative in Congress in 1881-1899, and the drafter of the Dingley Tariff Bill (1897).

LEWIS-WITH-HARRIS, the most northerly island of the Outer Hebrides, Scotland. It is sometimes called the Long Island and is 24 m. from the nearest point of the mainland, from which it is separated by the strait called The Minch. It is 60 m. long and has an extreme breadth of 30 m., its average breadth being 15 m. It is divided into two portions by a line roughly drawn between Loch Resort on the west and Loch Seaforth on the east, of which the larger or more northerly portion, known as Lewis (pron. Lews), belongs to the county of Ross and Cromarty and the lesser, known as Harris, to Inverness-shire. The area of the whole island is 492,800 acres, or 770 sq. m., of which 368,000 acres belong to Lewis. In 1891 the population of Lewis was 27,045, of Harris 3681; in 1901 the population of Lewis was 28,357, of Harris 3803, or 32,160 for the island, of whom 17,175 were females, 11,209 spoke Gaelic only, and 17,685 both Gaelic and English. There is communication with certain ports of the Western Highlands by steamer via Stornoway every week—oftener during the tourist and special seasons—the steamers frequently calling at Loch Erisort, Loch Sealg, Ardvourlie, Tarbert, Ardvey, Rodel and The Obe. The coast is indented to a remarkable degree, the principal sea-lochs in Harris being East and West Loch Tarbert; and in Lewis, Loch Seaforth, Loch Erisort and Broad Bay (or Loch a Tuath) on the east coast and Loch Roag and Loch Resort on the west. The mainland is dotted with innumerable fresh-water lakes. The island is composed of gneiss rocks, excepting a patch of granite near Carloway, small bands of intrusive basalt at Gress and in Eye Peninsula and some Torridonian sandstone at Stornoway, Tong, Vatskir and Carloway. Most of Harris is mountainous, there being more than thirty peaks above 1000 ft. high. Lewis is comparatively flat, save in the south-east, where Ben More reaches 1874 ft., and in the south-west, where Mealasbhal (1885) is the highest point; but in this division there are only eleven peaks exceeding 1000 ft. in height. The rivers are small and unimportant. The principal capes are the Butt of Lewis, in the extreme north, where the cliffs are nearly 150 ft. high and crowned with a lighthouse, the light of which is visible for 19 m.; Tolsta Head, Tiumpan Head and Cabag Head, on the east; Renish Point, in the extreme south; and, on the west, Toe Head and Gallon Head. The following inhabited islands in the Inverness-shire division belong to the parish of Harris: off the S.W. coast, Bernera (pop. 524), Ensay, Killigray and Pabbay; off the W. coast, Scarp (160), Soay and Tarrensay (72); off the E. coast, Scalpa (587) and Scotasay. Belonging to the county of Ross and Cromarty are Great Bernera (580) to the W. of Lewis, in the parish of Uig, and the Shiant Isles, about 21 m. S. of Stornoway, in the parish of Lochs, so named from the number of its sea lochs and fresh-water lakes. The south-eastern base of Broad Bay is furnished by the peninsula of Eye, attached to the main mass by so slender a neck as seemingly to be on the point of becoming itself an island. Much of the surface of both Lewis and Harris is composed of peat and swamp; there are scanty fragments of an ancient forest. The rainfall for the year averages 41.7 in., autumn and winter being very wet. Owing to the influence of the Gulf Stream, however, the temperature is fairly high, averaging for the year 46.6° F., for January 39.5° F. and for August 56.5° F.

The economic conditions of the island correspond with its physical conditions. The amount of cultivable land is small and poor. Sir James Matheson (1796-1878), who purchased the island in 1844, is said to have spent nearly £350,000 in reclamation and improvements. Barley and potatoes are the chief crops. A large number of black cattle are reared and some sheep-farming is carried on in Harris. Kelp-making, once important, has been extinct for many years. Harris has obtained great reputation for tweeds. The cloth has an aroma of heather and peat, and is made in the dwellings of the cotters, who use dyes of long-established excellence. The fisheries are the principal mainstay of the people. In spite of the very considerable reductions in rent effected by the Crofters’ Commission (appointed in 1886) and the sums expended by government, most of the crofters still live in poor huts amid dismal surroundings. The island affords good sporting facilities. Many of the streams abound with salmon and trout; otters and seals are plentiful, and deer and hares common; while bird life includes grouse, ptarmigan, woodcock, snipe, heron, widgeon, teal, eider duck, swan and varieties of geese and gulls. There are many antiquarian remains, including duns, megaliths, ruined towers and chapels and the like. At Rodel, in the extreme south of Harris, is a church, all that is left of an Augustinian monastery. The foundation is Norman and the superstructure Early English. On the towers are curious carved figures and in the interior several tombs of the Macleods, the most remarkable being that of Alastair (Alexander), son of William Macleod of Dunvegan, dated 1528. The monument, a full-length recumbent effigy of a knight in armour, lies at the base of a tablet in the shape of an arch divided into compartments, in which are carved in bas-relief, besides the armorial bearings of the deceased and a rendering of Dunvegan castle, several symbolical scenes, one of which exhibits Satan weighing in the balance the good and evil deeds of Alastair Macleod, the good obviously preponderating. Stornoway, the chief town (pop. 3852) is treated under a separate heading. At Callernish, 13 m. due W. of Stornoway, are several stone circles, one of which is probably the most perfect example of so-called “Druidical” structures in the British Isles. In this specimen the stones are huge, moss-covered, undressed blocks of gneiss. Twelve of such monoliths constitute the circle, in the centre of which stands a pillar 17 ft. high. From the circle there runs northwards an avenue of stones, comprising on the right-hand side nine blocks and on the left-hand ten. There also branch off from the circle, on the east and west, a single line of four stones and, on the south, a single line of five stones. From the extreme point of the south file to the farther end of the avenue on the north is a distance of 127 yds. and the width from tip to tip of the east and west arms is 41 yds. Viewed from the north end of the avenue, the design is that of a cross. The most important fishery centre on the west coast is Carloway, where there is the best example of a broch, or fort, in the Hebrides. Rory, the blind harper who translated the Psalms into Gaelic, was born in the village. Tarbert, at the head of East Loch Tarbert, is a neat, clean village, in communication by mail-car with Stornoway. At Coll, a few miles N. by E. of Stornoway, is a mussel cave; and at Gress, 2 m. or so beyond in the same direction, there is a famous seals’ cave, adorned with fine stalactites. Port of Ness, where there is a harbour, is the headquarters of the ling fishery. Loch Seaforth gave the title of earl to a branch of the Mackenzies, but in 1716 the 5th earl was attainted for Jacobitism and the title forfeited. In 1797 Francis Humberston Mackenzie (1754-1815), chief of the Clan Mackenzie, was created Lord Seaforth and Baron Mackenzie of Kintail, and made colonel of the 2nd battalion of the North British Militia, afterwards the 3rd battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders. The 2nd battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders was formerly the Ross-shire Buffs, which was raised in 1771.

LEXICON, a dictionary (q.v.). The word is the Latinized form of Gr. λεξικόν, sc. βιβλίον, a word-book (λέξις, word, λέγειν, to speak). Lexicon, rather than dictionary, is used of word-books of the Greek language, and sometimes of Arabic and Hebrew.

LEXINGTON, BARON, a title borne in the English family of Sutton from 1645 to 1723. Robert Sutton (1594-1668), son of Sir William Sutton of Averham, Nottinghamshire, was a member of parliament for his native county in 1625 and again in 1640. He served Charles I. during the Civil War, making great monetary sacrifices for the royal cause, and in 1645 the king created him Baron Lexington, this being a variant of the name of the Nottinghamshire village of Laxton. His estate suffered during the time of the Commonwealth, but some money was returned to him by Charles II. He died on the 13th of October 1668. His only son, Robert, the 2nd baron (1661-1723), supported in the House of Lords the elevation of William of Orange to the throne, and was employed by that king at court and on diplomatic business. He also served as a soldier, but he is chiefly known as the British envoy at Vienna during the conclusion of the treaty of Ryswick, and at Madrid during the negotiations which led to the treaty of Utrecht. He died on the 19th of September 1723. His letters from Vienna, selected and edited by the Hon. H. M. Sutton, were published as the Lexington Papers (1851). Lexington’s barony became extinct on his death, but his estates descended to the younger sons of his daughter Bridget (d. 1734), the wife of John Manners, 3rd duke of Rutland. Lord George Manners, who inherited these estates in 1762, is the ancestor of the family of Manners-Sutton. An earlier member of this family is Oliver Sutton, bishop of Lincoln from 1280 to 1299.

LEXINGTON, a city and the county-seat of Fayette county, Kentucky, U.S.A., about 75 m. S. of Cincinnati. Pop. (1900) 26,369, of whom 10,130 were negroes and 924 were foreign-born; (1910 census), 35,099. It is served by the Louisville & Nashville, the Southern, the Chesapeake & Ohio, the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific, the Lexington & Eastern, and electric railways. The city, which lies at an altitude of about 950 ft., is situated near the centre of the celebrated “blue grass” region, into which extend a number of turnpike roads. Its public buildings include the court house and the Federal building, both built of Bowling Green oolitic limestone. Among the public institutions are two general hospitals—St Joseph’s (Roman Catholic) and Good Samaritan (controlled by the Protestant churches of the city)—the Eastern Lunatic Asylum (1815, a state institution since 1824), with 250 acres of grounds; a state House of Reform for Girls and a state House of Reform for Boys (both at Greendale, a suburb); an orphan industrial school (for negroes); and two Widows’ and Orphans’ Homes, one established by the Odd Fellows of Kentucky and the other by the Knights of Pythias of the state. Lexington is the seat of Transylvania University (non-sectarian; coeducational), formerly Kentucky University (Disciples of Christ), which grew out of Bacon College (opened at Georgetown, Ky., in 1836), was chartered in 1858 as Kentucky University, and was opened at Harrodsburg, Ky., in 1859, whence after a fire in 1864 it removed to Lexington in 1865. At Lexington it was consolidated with the old Transylvania University, a well-known institution which had been chartered as Transylvania Seminary in 1783, was opened near Danville, Ky., in 1785, was removed to Lexington in 1789, was re-chartered as Transylvania University in 1798, and virtually ceased to exist in 1859.[1] In 1908 Kentucky University resumed the old name, Transylvania University. It has a college of Liberal Arts, a College of Law, a Preparatory School, a Junior College for Women, and Hamilton College for women (founded in 1869 as Hocker Female College), over which the university assumed control in 1903, and a College of the Bible, organized in 1865 as one of the colleges of the university, but now under independent control. In 1907-1908 Transylvania University, including the College of the Bible, had 1129 students. At Lexington are the State University, two colleges for girls—the Campbell-Hagerman College and Sayre College—and St Catherine’s Academy (Roman Catholic). The city is the meeting-place of a Chatauqua Assembly, and has a public library. The State University was founded (under the Federal Land Grant Act of 1862) in 1865 as the State Agricultural and Mechanical College, was opened in 1866, and was a college of Kentucky University until 1878. In 1890 the college received a second Federal appropriation, and it received various grants from the state legislature, which in 1880 imposed a state tax of one-half of 1% for its support. In connexion with it an Agricultural Experiment Station was established in 1885. In 1908 its title became, by act of Legislature, the State University. The university has a College of Agriculture, a College of Arts and Science, a College of Law, a School of Civil Engineering, a School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, and a School of mining Engineering. The university campus is the former City Park, in the southern part of the city. In 1907-1908 the university had 1064 students. The city is the see of a Protestant Episcopal bishopric.

Lexington was the home of Henry Clay from 1797 until his death in 1852, and in his memory a monument has been erected, consisting of a magnesian-limestone column (about 120 ft.) in the Corinthian style and surmounted by a statue of Clay, the head of which was torn off in 1902 by a thunderbolt. Clay’s estate, “Ashland,” is now one of the best known of the stock-farms in the vicinity; the present house is a replica of Clay’s home. The finest and most extensive of these stock-farms, and probably the finest in the world, is “Elmendorf,” 6 m. from the city. On these farms many famous trotting and running horses have been raised. There are two race-tracks in Lexington, and annual running and trotting race meetings attract large crowds. The city’s industries consist chiefly in a large trade in tobacco, hemp, grain and live stock—there are large semi-annual horse sales—and in the manufacture of “Bourbon” whisky, tobacco, flour, dressed flax and hemp, carriages, harness and saddles. The total value of the city’s factory products in 1905 was $2,774,329 (46.9% more than in 1900).

Lexington was named from Lexington, Massachusetts, in 1775 by a party of hunters who were encamped here when they received the news of the battle of Lexington; the permanent settlement dates from 1779. It was laid out in 1781, incorporated as a town in 1782, and chartered as a city in 1832. The first newspaper published west of the Alleghany Mountains, the Kentucky Gazette, was established here in 1787, to promote the separation of Kentucky from Virginia. The first state legislature met here in 1792, but later in the same year Frankfort became the state capital. Until 1907, when the city was enlarged by annexation, its limits remained as they were first laid out, a circle with a radius of 1 m., the court house being its centre.

See G. W. Ranck, History of Lexington, Kentucky (Cincinnati, 1872).

[1] See Robert Peter, Transylvania University: Its Origin, Rise, Decline and Fall (Louisville, 1896), and his History of the Medical Department of Transylvania University (Louisville, 1905).

LEXINGTON, a township of Middlesex county, Massachusetts, U.S.A., about 11 m. N.W. of Boston. Pop. (1900) 3831, (1910 U.S. census) 4918. It is traversed by the Boston & Maine railroad and by the Lowell & Boston electric railway. Its area is about 17 sq. m., and it contains three villages—Lexington, East Lexington and North Lexington. Agriculture is virtually the only industry. Owing to its historic interest the village of Lexington is visited by thousands of persons annually, for it was on the green or common of this village that the first armed conflict of the American War of Independence occurred. On the green stand a monument erected by the state in 1799 to the memory of the minute-men who fell in that engagement, a drinking fountain surmounted by a bronze statue (1900, by Henry Hudson Kitson) of Captain John Parker, who was in command of the minute-men, and a large boulder, which marks the position of the minute-men when they were fired upon by the British. Near the green, in the old burying-ground, are the graves of Captain Parker and other American patriots—the oldest gravestone is dated 1690. The Hancock-Clarke House (built in part in 1698) is now owned by the Lexington Historical Society and contains a museum of revolutionary and other relics, which were formerly exhibited in the Town Hall. The Buckman Tavern (built about 1690), the rendezvous of the minute-men, and the Munroe Tavern (1695), the headquarters of the British, are still standing, and two other houses, on the common, antedate the War of Independence. The Cary Library in this village, with 23,000 volumes (1908), was founded in 1868, and was housed in the Town Hall from 1871 until 1906, when it was removed to the Cary Memorial Library building. In the library are portraits of Paul Revere, William Dawes and Lord Percy. The Town Hall (1871) contains statues of John Hancock (by Thomas R. Gould) and Samuel Adams (by Martin Millmore), of the “Minute-Man of 1775” and the “Soldier of 1861,” and a painting by Henry Sandham, “The Battle of Lexington.”

Lexington was settled as a part of Cambridge as early as 1642. It was organized as a parish in 1691 and was made a township (probably named in honour of Lord Lexington) in 1713. In the evening of the 18th of April 1775 a British force of about 800 men under Lieut.-Colonel Francis Smith and Major John Pitcairn was sent by General Thomas Gage from Boston to destroy military stores collected by the colonists at Concord, and to seize John Hancock and Samuel Adams, then at Parson Clarke’s house (now known as the Hancock-Clarke House) in Lexington. Although the British had tried to keep this movement a secret, Dr Joseph Warren discovered their plans and sent out Paul Revere and William Dawes to give warning of their approach. The expedition had not proceeded far when Smith, discovering that the country was aroused, despatched an express to Boston for reinforcements and ordered Pitcairn to hasten forward with a detachment of light infantry. Early in the morning of the 19th Pitcairn arrived at the green in the village of Lexington, and there found between sixty and seventy minute-men under Captain John Parker drawn up in line of battle. Pitcairn ordered them to disperse, and on their refusal to do so his men fired a volley. Whether a stray shot preceded the first volley, and from which side it came, are questions which have never been determined. After a second volley from the British, Parker ordered his men to withdraw. The engagement lasted only a few minutes, but eight Americans were killed and nine were wounded; not more than two or three of the British were wounded. Hancock and Adams had escaped before the British troops reached Lexington. The British proceeded from Lexington to Concord (q.v.). On their return they were continually fired upon by Americans from behind trees, rocks, buildings and other defences, and were threatened with complete destruction until they were rescued at Lexington by a force of 1000 men under Lord Hugh Percy (later, 1786, duke of Northumberland). Percy received the fugitives within a hollow square, checked the onslaught for a time with two field-pieces, used the Munroe Tavern for a hospital, and later in the day carried his command with little further injury back to Boston. The British losses for the entire day were 73 killed, 174 wounded and 26 missing; the American losses were 49 killed, 39 wounded and 5 missing.

In 1839 a state normal school for women (the first in Massachusetts and the first public training school for teachers in the United States) was opened at Lexington; it was transferred to West Newton in 1844 and to Framingham in 1853.

See Charles Hudson, History of the Town of Lexington (Boston, 1868), and the publications of the Lexington Historical Society, (1890 seq.).

LEXINGTON, a city and the county-seat of Lafayette county, Missouri, U.S.A., situated on the S. bank of the Missouri river, about 40 m. E. of Kansas City. Pop. (1900) 4190, including 1170 negroes and 283 foreign-born; (1910) 5242. It is served by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé, the Wabash (at Lexington Junction, 4 m. N.W.), and the Missouri Pacific railway systems. The city lies for the most part on high broken ground at the summit of the river bluffs, but in part upon their face. Lexington is the seat of the Lexington College for Young Women (Baptist, established 1855), the Central College for Women (Methodist Episcopal, South; opened 1869), and the Wentworth Military Academy (1880). There are steam flour mills, furniture factories and various other small manufactories; but the main economic interest of the city is in brickyards and coal-mines in its immediate vicinity. It is one of the principal coal centres of the state, Higginsville (pop. in 1910, 2628), about 12 m. S.E., in the same county, also being important. Lexington was founded in 1819, was laid out in 1832, and, with various additions, was chartered as a city in 1845. A new charter was received in 1870. Lexington succeeded Sibley as the eastern terminus of the Santa Fé trade, and was in turn displaced by Independence; it long owed its prosperity to the freighting trade up the Missouri, and at the opening of the Civil War it was the most important river town between St Louis and St Joseph and commanded the approach by water to Fort Leavenworth.

After the Confederate success at Wilson’s Creek (Aug. 10, 1861), General Sterling Price advanced northward, and with about 15,000 men arrived in the vicinity of Lexington on the 12th of September. Here he found a Federal force of about 2800 men under Colonel James A. Mulligan (1830-1864) throwing up intrenchments on Masonic College Hill, an eminence adjoining Lexington on the N.E. An attack was made on the same day and the Federals were driven within their defences, but at night General Price withdrew to the Fair-grounds not far away and remained there five days waiting for his wagon train and for reinforcements. On the 18th the assault was renewed, and on the 20th the Confederates, advancing behind movable breastworks of water-soaked bales of hemp, forced the besieged, now long without water, to surrender. The losses were: Confederate, 25 killed and 75 wounded; Federal, 39 killed and 120 wounded. At the end of September General Price withdrew, leaving a guard of only a few hundred in the town, and on the 16th of the next month a party of 220 Federal scouts under Major Frank J. White (1842-1875) surprised this guard, released about 15 prisoners, and captured 60 or more Confederates. Another Federal raid on the town was made in December of the same year by General John Pope’s cavalry. Again, during General Price’s Missouri expedition in 1864, a Federal force entered Lexington on the 16th of October, and three days later there was some fighting about 4 m. S. of the town.

LEXINGTON, a town and the county-seat of Rockbridge county, Virginia, U.S.A., on the North river (a branch of the James), about 30 m. N.N.W. of Lynchburg. Pop. (1900) 3203 (1252 negroes); (1910) 2931. It is served by the Chesapeake & Ohio and the Baltimore & Ohio railways. The famous Natural Bridge is about 16 m. S.W., and there are mineral springs in the vicinity—at Rockbridge Baths, 10 m. N., at Wilson’s Springs, 12 m. N., and at Rockbridge Alum Springs, 17 m. N.W. Lexington is best known as the seat of Washington and Lee University, and of the Virginia Military Institute. The former grew out of Augusta Academy, which was established in 1749 in Augusta county, about 15 m. S.W. of what is now the city of Staunton, was renamed Liberty Hall and was established near Lexington in 1780, and was chartered as Liberty Hall Academy in 1782. In 1798 its name was changed to Washington Academy, in recognition of a gift from George Washington of some shares of canal stock, which he refused to receive from the Virginia legislature. In 1802 the Virginia branch of the Society of the Cincinnati disbanded and turned over to the academy its funds, about $25,000; in 1813 the academy took the name Washington College; and in 1871 its corporate name was changed to Washington and Lee University, the addition to the name being made in honour of General Robert E. Lee, who was the president of the college from August 1865 until his death in 1870. He was succeeded by his son, General George Washington Custis Lee (b. 1832), president from 1871 to 1897, and Dr William Lyne Wilson (1843-1900), the eminent political leader and educator, was president from 1897 to 1900. In 1908-1909 the university comprised a college, a school of commerce, a school of engineering and a school of law, and had a library of 47,000 volumes, 23 instructors and 565 students. In the Lee Memorial chapel, on the campus, General Robert E. Lee is buried, and over his grave is a notable recumbent statue of him by Edward Virginius Valentine (b. 1838). The Virginia Military Institute was established in March 1839, when its cadet corps supplanted the company of soldiers maintained by the state to garrison the Western Arsenal at Lexington. The first superintendent (1839-1890) was General Francis Henney Smith (1812-1890), a graduate (1833) of the United States Military Academy; and from 1851 until the outbreak of the Civil War “Stonewall” Jackson was a professor in the Institute—he is buried in the Lexington cemetery and his grave is marked by a monument. On the campus of the institute is a fine statue, “Virginia Mourning Her Dead,” by Moses Ezekiel (b. 1844), which commemorates the gallantry of a battalion of 250 cadets from the institute, more than 50 of whom were killed or wounded during the engagement at New Market on the 15th of May 1864. In 1908-1909 the institute had 21 instructors and 330 cadets. Flour is manufactured in Lexington and lime in the vicinity. The town owns and operates its water-works. The first settlers of Rockbridge county established themselves in 1737 near the North river, a short distance below Lexington. The first permanent settlement on the present site was made about 1778. On the 11th of June 1864, during the occupation of the town by Federal troops under General David Hunter, most of the buildings in the town and those of the university were damaged and all those of the institute, except the superintendent’s headquarters, were burned.

LEYDEN, JOHN (1775-1811), British orientalist and man of letters, was born on the 8th of September 1775 at Denholm on the Teviot, not far from Hawick. Leyden’s father was a shepherd, but contrived to send his son to Edinburgh University to study for the ministry. Leyden was a diligent but somewhat miscellaneous student, reading everything apparently, except theology, for which he seems to have had no taste. Though he completed his divinity course, and in 1798 received licence to preach from the presbytery of St Andrews, it soon became clear that the pulpit was not his vocation. In 1794 Leyden had formed the acquaintance of Dr Robert Anderson, editor of The British Poets, and of The Literary Magazine. It was Anderson who introduced him to Dr Alexander Murray, and Murray, probably, who led him to the study of Eastern languages. They became warm friends and generous rivals, though Leyden excelled, perhaps, in the rapid acquisition of new tongues and acquaintance with their literature, while Murray was the more scientific philologist. Through Anderson also he came to know Richard Heber, by whom he was brought under the notice of Sir Walter Scott, who was then collecting materials for his Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border. Leyden was admirably fitted for helping in this kind of work, for he was a borderer himself, and an enthusiastic lover of old ballads and folk-lore. Scott tells how, on one occasion, Leyden walked 40 m. to get the last two verses of a ballad, and returned at midnight, singing it all the way with his loud, harsh voice, to the wonder and consternation of the poet and his household.

Leyden meanwhile compiled a work on the Discoveries and Settlements of Europeans in Northern and Western Africa, suggested by Mungo Park’s travels, edited The Complaint of Scotland, printed a volume of Scottish descriptive poems, and nearly finished his Scenes of Infancy, a diffuse poem based on border scenes and traditions. He also made some translations from Eastern poetry, Persian and Arabic. At last his friends got him an appointment in India on the medical staff, for which he qualified by a year’s hard work. In 1803 he sailed for Madras, and took his place in the general hospital there. He was promoted to be naturalist to the commissioners going to survey Mysore, and in 1807 his knowledge of the languages of India procured him an appointment as professor of Hindustani at Calcutta; this he soon after resigned for a judgeship, and that again to be a commissioner in the court of requests in 1809, a post which required a familiarity with several Eastern tongues. In 1811 he joined Lord Minto in the expedition to Java. Having entered a library which was said to contain many Eastern MSS., without having the place aired, he was seized with Batavian fever, and died, after three days’ illness, on the 28th of August 1811.

LEYDEN JAR, or Condenser, an electrical appliance consisting in one form of a thin glass jar partly coated inside and outside with tin foil, or in another of a number of glass plates similarly coated. When the two metal surfaces are connected for a short time with the terminals of some source of electromotive force, such as an electric machine, an induction coil or a voltaic battery, electric energy is stored up in the condenser in the form of electric strain in the glass, and can be recovered again in the form of an electric discharge.

The earliest form of Leyden jar consisted of a glass vial or thin Florence flask, partly full of water, having a metallic nail inserted through the cork which touched the water. The bottle was held in the hand, and the nail presented Early history. to the prime conductor of an electrical machine. If the person holding the bottle subsequently touched the nail, he experienced an electric shock. This experiment was first made by E. G. von Kleist of Kammin in Pomerania in 1745,[1] and it was repeated in another form in 1746 by Cunaeus and P. van Musschenbroek, of the university of Leyden (Leiden), whence the term Leyden jar.[2] J. H. Winkler discovered that an iron chain wound round the bottle could be substituted for the hand, and Sir William Watson in England shortly afterward showed that iron filings or mercury could replace the water within the jar. Dr John Bevis of London suggested, in 1746, the use of sheet lead coatings within and without the jar, and subsequently the use of tin foil or silver leaf made closely adherent to the glass. Benjamin Franklin and Bevis devised independently the form of condenser known as a Franklin or Leyden pane, which consists of a sheet of glass, partly coated on both sides with tin foil or silver leaf, a margin of glass all round being left to insulate the two tin foils from each other. Franklin in 1747 and 1748 made numerous investigations on the Leyden jar, and devised a method of charging jars in series as well as in parallel. In the former method, now commonly known as charging in cascade, the jars are insulated and the outside coating of one jar is connected to the inside coating of the next and so on for a whole series, the inside coating of the first jar and the outside coating of the last jar being the terminals of the condenser. For charging in parallel a number of jars are collected in a box, and all the outside coatings are connected together metallically and all the inside coatings brought to one common terminal. This arrangement is commonly called a battery of Leyden jars. To Franklin also we owe the important knowledge that the electric charge resides really in the glass and not in the metal coatings, and that when a condenser has been charged the metallic coatings can be exchanged for fresh ones and yet the electric charge of the condenser remains.

In its modern form the Leyden jar consists of a wide-mouthed bottle of thin English flint glass of uniform thickness, free from flaws. About half the outside and half the inside surface is coated smoothly with tin foil, and the remainder of Modern construction. the glazed surface is painted with shellac varnish. A wooden stopper closes the mouth of the jar, and through it a brass rod passes which terminates in a chain, or better still, three elastic brass springs, which make good contact with the inner coating. The rod terminates externally in a knob or screw terminal. The jar has a certain capacity C which is best expressed in microfarads or electrostatic units (see [Electrostatics]), and is determined by the surface of the tin foil and thickness and quality of the glass. The jar can be charged so that a certain potential difference V, reckoned in volts, exists between the two coatings. If a certain critical potential is exceeded, the glass gives way under the electric strain and is pierced. The safe voltage for most glass jars is about 20,000 volts for glass 1⁄10th in. in thickness; this corresponds with an electric spark of about 7 millimetres in length. When the jar is charged, it is usually discharged through a metallic arc called the discharging tongs, and this discharge is in the form of an oscillatory current (see [Electrokinetics]). The energy stored up in the jar in joules is expressed by the value of ½ CV2, where C is the capacity measured in farads and V the potential difference of the coatings in volts. If the capacity C is reckoned in microfarads then the energy storage is equal to CV2/2 × 106 joules or 0.737 CV2/2 × 106 foot-pounds. The size of jar commonly known as a quart size may have a capacity from 1⁄400th to 1⁄800th of a microfarad, and if charged to 20,000 volts stores up energy from a quarter to half a joule or from 3⁄16ths to 3⁄8ths of a foot-pound.

Leyden jars are now much employed for the production of the high frequency electric currents used in wireless telegraphy (see [Telegraphy], [Wireless]). For this purpose they are made by Moscicki in the form of glass tubes partly coated by silver chemically deposited on the glass on the inner and outer surfaces. The tubes have walls thicker at the ends than in the middle, as the tendency to puncture the glass is greatest at the edges of the coatings. In other cases, Leyden jars or condensers take the form of sheets of mica or micanite or ebonite partly coated with tin foil or silver leaf on both sides; or a pile of sheets of alternate tin foil and mica may be built up, the tin foil sheets having lugs projecting out first on one side and then on the other. All the lugs on one side are connected together, and so also are all the lugs on the other side, and the two sets of tin foils separated by sheets of mica constitute the two metallic surfaces of the Leyden jar condenser. For the purposes of wireless telegraphy, when large condensers are required, the ordinary Leyden High tension condensers. jar occupies too much space in comparison with its electrical capacity, and hence the best form of condenser consists of a number of sheets of crown glass, each partly coated on both sides with tin foil. The tin foil sheets have lugs attached which project beyond the glass. The plates are placed in a vessel full of insulating oil which prevents the glow or brush discharge taking place over their edges. All the tin foils on one side of the glass plates are connected together and all the tin foils on the opposite sides, so as to construct a condenser of any required capacity. The box should be of glass or stoneware or other non-conducting material. When glass tubes are used it is better to employ tubes thicker at the ends than in the middle, as it has been found that when the safe voltage is exceeded and the glass gives way under electric strain, the piercing of the glass nearly always takes place at the edges of the tin foil.

Glass is still commonly used as a dielectric because of its cheapness, high dielectric strength or resistance to electric puncture, and its high dielectric constant (see [Electrostatics]). It has been found, however, that very Compressed air condensers. efficient condensers can be made with compressed air as dielectric. If a number of metal plates separated by small distance pieces are enclosed in an iron box which is pumped full of air to a pressure, say, of 100 ℔. to 1 sq. in., the dielectric strength of the air is greatly increased, and the plates may therefore be brought very near to one another without causing a spark to pass under such voltage as would cause discharge in air at normal pressure. Condensers of this kind have been employed by R. A. Fessenden in wireless telegraphy, and they form a very excellent arrangement for standard condensers with which to compare the capacity of other Leyden jars. Owing to the variation in the value of the dielectric constant of glass with the temperature and with the frequency of the applied electromotive force, and also owing to electric glow discharge from the edges of the tin foil coatings, the capacity of an ordinary Leyden jar is not an absolutely fixed quantity, but its numerical value varies somewhat with the method by which it is measured, and with the other circumstances above mentioned. For the purpose of a standard condenser a number of concentric metal tubes may be arranged on an insulating stand, alternate tubes being connected together. One coating of the condenser is formed by one set of tubes and the other by the other set, the air between being the dielectric. Paraffin oil or any liquid dielectric of constant inductivity may replace the air.

See J. A. Fleming, Electric Wave Telegraphy (London, 1906); R. A. Fessenden, “Compressed Air for Condensers,” Electrician, 1905, 55, p. 795; Moscicki, “Construction of High Tension Condensers,” L’Éclairage électrique, 1904, 41, p. 14, or Engineering, 1904, p. 865.

(J. A. F.)

[1] Park Benjamin, The Intellectual Rise in Electricity, p. 512.