The Complete Works of Andrew Dickson White

The Complete Works of Andrew Dickson White

Andrew Dickson White

Shrine of Knowledge

© Shrine of Knowledge 2020

A publishing centre dectated to publishing of human treasures.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of the succession or as expressly permitted by law or under the conditions agreed with the person concerned. copy rights organization. Requests for reproduction outside the above scope must be sent to the Rights Department, Shrine of Knowledge, at the address above.

ISBN 10: 599893680

ISBN 13: 9780599893689

This collection includes the following:

History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

The Most Bitter Foe of Nations, and the Way to Its Permanent Overthrow

Fiat Money Inflation in France

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 16, Slice 2

The Warfare of Science

Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White — Volume 1

Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White — Volume 2

THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

XVI SLICE II

Lamennais, Robert de to Latini, Brunetto

Articles in This Slice

124

LAMENNAIS, HUGUES FÉLICITÉ ROBERT DE (1782-1854), French priest, and philosophical and political writer, was born at Saint Malo, in Brittany, on the 19th of June 1782. He was the son of a shipowner of Saint Malo ennobled by Louis XVI. for public services, and was intended by his father to follow mercantile pursuits. He spent long hours in the library of an uncle, devouring the writings of Rousseau, Pascal and others. He thereby acquired a vast and varied, though superficial, erudition, which determined his subsequent career. Of a sickly and sensitive nature, and impressed by the horrors of the French Revolution, his mind was early seized with a morbid view of life, and this temper characterized him throughout all his changes of opinion and circumstance. He was at first inclined towards rationalistic views, but partly through the influence of his brother Jean Marie (1775-1861), partly as a result of his philosophical and historical studies, he felt belief to be indispensable to action and saw in religion the most powerful leaven of the community. He gave utterance to these convictions in the Réflexions sur l’état de l’église en France pendant le 18ième siècle et sur sa situation actuelle, published anonymously in Paris in 1808. Napoleon’s police seized the book as dangerously ideological, with its eager recommendation of religious revival and active clerical organization, but it awoke the ultramontane spirit which has since played so great a part in the politics of churches and of states.

As a rest from political strife, Lamennais devoted most of the following year to a translation, in exquisite French, of the Speculum Monachorum of Ludovicus Blosius (Louis de Blois) which he entitled Le Guide spirituel (1809). In 1811 he received the tonsure and shortly afterwards became professor of mathematics in an ecclesiastical college founded by his brother at Saint Malo. Soon after Napoleon had concluded the Concordat with Pius VII. he published, in conjunction with his brother, De la tradition de l’église sur l’institution des évêques (1814), a writing occasioned by the emperor’s nomination of Cardinal Maury to the archbishopric of Paris, in which he strongly condemned the Gallican principle which allowed bishops to be created irrespective of the pope’s sanction. He was in Paris at the first Bourbon restoration in 1814, which he hailed with satisfaction, less as a monarchist than as a strenuous apostle of religious regeneration. Dreading the Cent Jours, he escaped to London, where he obtained a meagre livelihood by giving French lessons in a school founded by the abbé Jules Carron for French émigrés; 125 he also became tutor at the house of Lady Jerningham, whose first impression of him as an imbecile changed into friendship. On the final overthrow of Napoleon in 1815 he returned to Paris, and in the following year, with many misgivings as to his calling, he yielded to his brother’s and Carron’s advice, and was ordained priest by the bishop of Rennes.

The first volume of his great work, Essai sur l’indifférence en matière de religion, appeared in 1817 (Eng. trans. by Lord Stanley of Alderley, London, 1898), and affected Europe like a spell, investing, in the words of Lacordaire, a humble priest with all the authority once enjoyed by Bossuet. Lamennais denounced toleration, and advocated a Catholic restoration to belief. The right of private judgment, introduced by Descartes and Leibnitz into philosophy and science, by Luther into religion and by Rousseau and the Encyclopaedists into politics and society, had, he contended, terminated in practical atheism and spiritual death. Ecclesiastical authority, founded on the absolute revelation delivered to the Jewish people, but supported by the universal tradition of all nations, he proclaimed to be the sole hope of regenerating the European communities. Three more volumes (Paris, 1818-1824) followed, and met with a mixed reception from the Gallican bishops and monarchists, but with the enthusiastic adhesion of the younger clergy. The work was examined by three Roman theologians, and received the formal approval of Leo XII. Lamennais visited Rome at the pope’s request, and was offered a place in the Sacred College, which he refused. On his return to France he took a prominent part in political work, and together with Chateaubriand, the vicomte de Villèle, was a regular contributor to the Conservateur, but when Villèle became the chief of the supporters of absolute monarchy, Lamennais withdrew his support and started two rival organs, Le Drapeau blanc and Le Mémorial catholique. Various other minor works, together with De la religion considérée dans ses rapports avec l’ordre civil et politique (2 vols., 1825-1826), kept his name before the public.

He retired to La Chênaie and gathered round him a host of brilliant disciples, including C. de Montalembert, Lacordaire and Maurice de Guérin, his object being to form an organized body of opinion to persuade the French clergy and laity to throw off the yoke of the state connexion. With Rome at his back, as he thought, he adopted a frank and bold attitude in denouncing the liberties of the Gallican church. His health broke down and he went to the Pyrenees to recruit. On his return to La Chênaie in 1827 he had another dangerous illness, which powerfully impressed him with the thought that he had only been dragged back to life to be the instrument of Providence. Les Progrès de la révolution et de la guerre contre l’église (1828) marked Lamennais’s complete renunciation of royalist principles, and henceforward he dreamt of the advent of a theocratic democracy. To give effect to these views he founded L’Avenir, the first number of which appeared on the 16th of October 1830, with the motto God and Liberty. From the first the paper was aggressively democratic; it demanded rights of local administration, an enlarged suffrage, universal freedom of conscience, freedom of instruction, of meeting, and of the press. Methods of worship were to be criticized, improved or abolished in absolute submission to the spiritual, not to the temporal authority. With the help of Montalembert, he founded the Agence générale pour la défense de la liberté religieuse, which became a far-reaching organization, it had agents all over the land who noted any violations of religious freedom and reported them to headquarters. As a result, L’Avenir’s career was stormy, and the opposition of the Conservative bishops checked its circulation; Lamennais, Montalembert and Lacordaire resolved to suspend it for a while, and they set out to Rome in November 1831 to obtain the approval of Gregory XVI. The pilgrims of liberty were, after much opposition, received in audience by the pope, but only on the condition that the object which brought them to Rome should not be mentioned. This was a bitter disappointment to such earnest ultramontanes, who received, a few days after the audience, a letter from Cardinal Pacca, advising their departure from Rome and suggesting that the Holy See, whilst admitting the justice of their intentions, would like the matter left open for the present. Lacordaire and Montalembert obeyed; Lamennais, however, remained in Rome, but his last hope vanished with the issue of Gregory’s letter to the Polish bishops, in which the Polish patriots were reproved and the tsar was affirmed to be their lawful sovereign. He then shook the dust of Rome from off his feet. At Munich, in 1832, he received the encyclical Mirari vos, condemning his policy; as a result L’Avenir ceased and the Agence was dissolved.

Lamennais, with his two lieutenants, submitted, and deeply wounded, retired to La Chênaie. His genius and prophetic insight had turned the entire Catholic church against him, and those for whom he had fought so long were the fiercest of his opponents. The famous Paroles d’un croyant, published in 1834 through the intermediary of Sainte-Beuve, marks Lamennais’s severance from the church. A book, small in size, but immense in its perversity, was Gregory’s criticism in a new encyclical letter. A tractate of aphorisms, it has the vigour of a Hebrew prophecy and contains the choicest gems of poetic feeling lost in a whirlwind of exaggerations and distorted views of kings and rulers. The work had an extraordinary circulation and was translated into many European languages. It is now forgotten as a whole, but the beautiful appeals to love and human brotherhood are still reprinted in every hand-book of French literature.

Henceforth Lamennais was the apostle of the people alone. Les Affaires de Rome, des maux de l’église et de la société (1837) came from old habit of religious discussions rather than from his real mind of 1837, or at most it was but a last word. Le Livre du peuple (1837), De l’esclavage moderne (1839), Politique à l’usage du peuple (1839), three volumes of articles from the journal of the extreme democracy, Le Monde, are titles of works which show that he had arrived among the missionaries of liberty, equality and fraternity, and he soon got a share of their martyrdom. Le Pays et le gouvernement (1840) caused him a year’s imprisonment. He struggled through difficulties of lost friendships, limited means and personal illnesses, faithful to the last to his hardly won dogma of the sovereignty of the people, and, to judge by his contribution to Louis Blanc’s Revue du progrès was ready for something like communism. He was named president of the Société de la solidarité républicaine, which counted half a million adherents in fifteen days. The Revolution of 1848 had his sympathies, and he started Le Peuple constituant; however, he was compelled to stop it on the 10th of July, complaining that silence was for the poor, but again he was at the head of La Révolution démocratique et sociale, which also succumbed. In the constituent assembly he sat on the left till the coupe d’état of Napoleon III. in 1851 put an end to all hopes of popular freedom. While deputy he drew up a constitution, but it was rejected as too radical. Thereafter a translation of Dante chiefly occupied him till his death, which took place in Paris on the 27th of February 1854. He refused to be reconciled to the church, and was buried according to his own directions at Père La Chaise without funeral rites, being mourned by a countless concourse of democratic and literary admirers.

During the most difficult time of his republican period he found solace for his intellect in the composition of Une voix de prison, written during his imprisonment in a similar strain to Les paroles d’un croyant. This is an interesting contribution to the literature of captivity; it was published in Paris in 1846. He also wrote Esquisse de philosophie (1840). Of the four volumes of this work the third, which is an exposition of art as a development from the aspirations and necessities of the temple, stands pre-eminent, and remains the best evidence of his thinking power and brilliant style.

There are two so-called Œuvres complètes de Lamennais, the first in 10 volumes (Paris, 1836-1837), and the other in 10 volumes (Paris, 1844); both these are very incomplete and only contain the works mentioned above. The most noteworthy of his writings subsequently published are: Amschaspands et Darvands (1843), Le Deuil de la Pologne (1846), Mélanges philosophiques et politiques (1856), Les Évangiles (1846) and La Divine Comédie, these latter being translations of the Gospels and of Dante.

126

Part of his voluminous correspondence has also appeared. The most interesting volumes are the following: Correspondance de F. de Lamennais, edited by E. D. Forgues (2 vols., 1855-1858); Œuvres inédites de F. Lamennais, edited by Ange Blaize (2 vols., 1866); Correspondance inédite entre Lamennais et le baron de Vitrolles, edited by E. D. Forgues (1819-1853); Confidences de Lamennais, lettres inédites de 1821 à 1848, edited by A. du Bois de la Villerabel (1886); Lamennais d’après des documents inédits, by Alfred Roussel (Rennes, 2 vols., 1892); Lamennais intime, d’après une correspondance inédite, by A. Roussel (Rennes, 1897); Un Lamennais inconnu, edited by A. Laveille (1898); Lettres de Lamennais à Montalembert, edited by E. D. Forgues (1898); and many other letters published in the Revue bleue, Revue britannique, &c.

A list of lives or studies on Lamennais would fill several columns. The following may be mentioned. A Blaize, Essai biographique sur M. de Lamennais (1858); E. D. Forgues, Notes et souvenirs (1859); F. Brunetière, Nouveaux essais sur la littérature contemporaine (1893); E. Faguet, Politiques et moralistes, ii. (1898); P. Janet, La Philosophie de Lamennais (1890); P. Mercier, S.J., Lamennais d’après sa correspondance et les travaux les plus récents (1893); A. Mollien et F. Duine, Lamennais, sa vie et ses idées; Pages choisies (Lyons, 1898); The Hon. W. Gibson, The Abbé de Lammenais and the Liberal Catholic Movement in France (London, 1896); E. Renan Essais de morale et de critique (1857); E. Schérer, Mélanges de critique religieuse (1859); G. E. Spuller, Lamennais, étude d’histoire et de politique religieuse (1892); Mgr. Ricard, L’école menaisienne (1882), and Sainte-Beuve, Portraits contemporains, tome i. (1832), and Nouveaux Lundis, tome i. p. 22; tome xi. p. 347.

LAMENTATIONS (Lamentations of Jeremiah), a book of the Old Testament. In Hebrew MSS. and editions this little collection of liturgical poems is entitled איכה Ah how!, the first word of ch. i. (and chs. ii., iv.); cf. the books of the Pentateuch, and the Babylonian Epic of Creation (a far older example). In the Septuagint it is called Θρῆνοι, Funeral-songs or Dirges, the usual rendering of Heb. קינות (Am. v. 1; Jer. vii. 29; 2 Sam. i. 17), which is, in fact, the name in the Talmud (Baba Bathra 15a) and other Jewish writings; and it was known as such to the Fathers (Jerome, Cinoth). The Septuagint (B) introduces the book thus: And it came to pass, after Israel was taken captive and Jerusalem laid waste, Jeremiah sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said..., a notice which may have related originally to the first poem only. Some Septuagint MSS., and the Syriac and other versions, have the fuller title Lamentations of Jeremiah. In the Hebrew Bible Lamentations is placed among the Cetubim or Hagiographa, usually as the middle book of the five Megilloth or Ferial Rolls (Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther) according to the order of the days on which they are read in the Synagogue, Lamentations being read on the 9th of Ab (6th of August), when the destruction of the Temple is commemorated (Mass. Sopherim 18). But the Septuagint appends the book to Jeremiah (Baruch intervening), just as it adds Ruth to Judges; thus making the number of the books of the Hebrew Canon the same as that of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, viz. twenty-two (so Jos. c. Ap. i. 8), instead of the Synagogal twenty-four (see Baba Bathra 14b).

External features and poetical structure.—These poems exhibit a peculiar metre, the so-called limping verse, of which Am. v. 2 is a good instance:

A longer line, with three accented syllables, is followed by a shorter with two. Chs. i.-iii. consist of stanzas of three such couplets each; chs. iv. and v. of two like Am. v. 2. This metre came in time to be distinctive of elegy. The text of Lamentations, however, so often deviates from it, that we can only affirm the tendency of the poet to cast his couplets into this type (Driver). Some anomalies, both of metre and of sense, may be removed by judicious emendation; and many lines become smooth enough, if we assume a crasis of open vowels of the same class, or a diphthongal pronunciation of others, or contraction or silence of certain suffixes as in Syriac. The oldest elegiac utterances are not couched in this metre; e.g. David’s (2 Sam. iii. 33 f. Abner; ib. i. 19-27 Saul and Jonathan). Yet the refrain of the latter, ’Eik náf ’lu gíbborím, Ah how are heroes fallen! agrees with our longer line. The remote ancestor of this Hebrew metre may be recognized in the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh, written at least a thousand years earlier:—

and again:—

Like a few of the Psalms, Lamentations i.-iv. are alphabetical acrostics. Each poem contains twenty-two stanzas, corresponding to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet; and each stanza begins with its proper letter. (In ch. iii. each of the three couplets in a stanza begins with the same letter, so that the alphabet is repeated thrice: cf. Psalm cxix. for an eight-fold repetition.) The alphabet of Lamentations ii. iii. iv. varies from the usual order of the letters by placing Pe before Ain. The same was doubtless the case in ch. i. also until some scribe altered it. He went no further, because the sense forbade it in the other instances. The variation may have been one of local use, either in Judea or in Babylonia; or the author may have had some fanciful reason for the transposition, such as, for example, that Pe following Samech (ספ) might suggest the word ספדו, Wail ye! (2 Sam. iii. 31). Although the oldest Hebrew elegies are not alphabetic acrostics, it is a curious fact that the word הידך, Was he a coward? (Sc. לבו; Is. vii. 4), is formed by the initial letters of the four lines on Abner (om. ו, line 3); and the initials of the verses of David’s great elegy are הא המשכ אצא, which may be read as a sentence meaning, perhaps, Lo, I the Avenger (cf. Deut. xxxii. 41, 43) will go forth!; or the first two letters (ה′א′) may stand for הוי אחי, Alas, my brother! (Jer. xxii. 18; cf. xxxiv. 5). In cryptic fashion the poet thus registers a vow of vengeance on the Philistines. Both kinds of acrostic occur side by side in the Psalms. Psalm cx., an acrostic of the same kind as David’s elegy, is followed by Psalms cxi. cxii., which are alphabetical acrostics, like the Lamentations. Such artifices are not in themselves greater clogs on poetic expression than the excessive alliteration of old Saxon verse or the strict rhymes of modern lyrics. (Alliteration, both initial and internal, is common in Lamentations.)

As the final piece, ch. v. may have suffered more in transmission than those which precede it—even to the extent of losing the acrostic form (like some of the Psalms and Nahum i.), besides half of its stanzas. If we divide the chapter into quatrains, like ch. iv., we notice several vestiges of an acrostic. The Aleph stanza (verses 7, 8) still precedes the Beth (verses 9, 10), and the Ain is still quite clear (verses 17, 18; cf. i. 16). Transposing verses 5, 6, and correcting their text, we see that the Jod stanza (verses 3, 4) precedes the Lamed (verses 6, 5), Caph having disappeared between them. With this clue, we may rearrange the other quatrains in alphabetical sequence, each according to its initial letter. We thus get a broken series of eleven stanzas, beginning with the letters א (verses 7, 8), ב (9, 10), ה (21, 22), ו (19, cf. Psalm cii. 13; and 20), ן (1, 2), ח (13, חורים; 14), י (3, 4), ל (6, לצרים; 5, הכבידו ... על), נ (11, 12), ע (17, 18), and ש (15, 16), successively. An internal connexion will now be apparent in all the stanzas.

General subject and outline of contents.—The theme of Lamentations is the final siege and fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), and the attendant and subsequent miseries of the Jewish people.

In ch. i. we have a vivid picture of the distress of Zion, after all is over. The poet does not describe the events of the siege, nor the horrors of the capture, but the painful experience of subjection and tyranny which followed. Neither this nor ch. ii. is strictly a dirge. Zion is not dead. She is personified as a widowed princess, bereaved and desolate, sitting amid the ruins of her former joys, and brooding over her calamities. From verse 11c to the end (except verse 17) she herself is the speaker:—

127

She images her sorrows under a variety of metaphors (cf. ch. iii. 1-18); ascribing all her woes to Yahweh’s righteous wrath, provoked by her sins, and crying for vengeance on the malicious rivals who had rejoiced at her overthrow.

The text has suffered much. Verse 5c read: בשבי (v. 18), into captivity, צרים (v. 7), adversaries. For verse 7, see Budde, V. 14: נשקד, read נקשר, was bound. Verse 19c read: אבל להשיב נפש ולא מצאו כי בקשו For they sought food to restore life, and found it not: cf. Septuagint; and verses 11, 16. Verse 20: the incongruous כי מרו מריתי, For I grievously rebelled, should be נכמרו רחמי, My inwards burn; Hos. xi. 8. Verses 21 f.: All my foes heard, rejoiced That IT (cf. Psalm ix. 13), Thou didst. Bring Thou (הבא את), the Day Thou hast proclaimed; Let them become like me! Let the time (עת; see Septuagint) of their calamity come!

Chapter ii.—Ah how in wrath the Lord | Beclouds Bath-Sion! The poet laments Yahweh’s anger as the true cause which destroyed city and kingdom, suspended feast and Sabbath, rejected altar and sanctuary. He mentions the uproar of the victors in the Temple; the dismantling of the walls; the exile of king and princes (verses 1-9). He recalls the mourning in the doomed city; the children dying of hunger in the streets; the prophets deluding the people with vain hopes. Passers-by jeered at the fallen city; and all her enemies triumphed over her (verses 10-17). Sion is urged to cry to the Lord in protest against His pitiless work (verses 18-22).

Here too emendation is necessary. Verse 4a: הציב הצו, He fixed His arrow, sc. on the string (Septuagint, ἐστερέωσεν); cf. Psalm xi. 2. Add at the end כלה (את) אפו, He spent His anger: see iv. 11; Ezek. vii. 8, xx. 8, 21. Verse 6: ויפרץ גדר משכנו, And He broke down the wall of His dwelling-place (Septuagint τὸ σκήνωμα αὐτοῦ; cf. Psalm lxxxiv. 7f., where מועד follows, as here). Is. v. 5; Psalms lxxx. 13, lxxxix. 41. Perhaps ויהרס, verses 2, 17. But Septuagint καὶ διεπέτασεν = ויפרש (i. 13, 17) = ויפרס (iv. 4) or even ויפרץ. Verse 9, perhaps: He sunk (טבע) her gates in the ground,—He shattered her bars; He made her king and her princes wander (אבר, Jer. xxiii. 1)—Among the nations without Torah (cf. Ezek. vii. 26 f.). Verse 18: Cry much (רבת; or bitterly, מר, Zeph. i. 14) unto the Lord, O Virgin Daughter of Zion! Verse 19 is metrically redundant, and the last clauses do not agree with what follows. For the life of thy children was altered from for what He hath done to thee (על שעולל לך); and then the rest was added. The uniform gloom of this, the most dirge-like of all the pieces, is unrelieved by a single ray of hope, even the hope of vengeance; cf. chapters i. iii. iv. ad fin.

Chapter iii.—Here the nation is personified as a man (cf. Hos. xi. 1), who laments his own calamities. In view of i. 12-22, ii. 20-22, this is hardly a serious deviation from the strict form of elegy (Klagelied). Budde makes much of the close external connexion with ch. ii. The truth is that the break is as great as between any two of these poems. Chapter ii. ends with a mother’s lament over her slaughtered children; chapter iii. makes an entirely new beginning, with its abruptly independent I am the Man! The suppression of the Divine Name is intentional. Israel durst not breathe it, until compelled by the climax, verse 18: cf. Am. vi. 10. Contrast its frequency afterwards, when ground of hope is found in the Divine pity and purpose (verses 22-40), and when the contrite nation turns to its God in prayer (verses 55-66). The spiritual aspect of things is now the main topic. The poet deals less with incident, and more with the moral significance of the nation’s sufferings. It is the religious culmination of the book. His poem is rather lyrical than narrative, which may account for some obscurities in the connexion of thought; but his alphabetic scheme proves that he designed twenty-two stanzas, not sixty-six detached couplets. There is something arresting in that bold I am the Man; and the lyrical intensity, the religious depth and beauty of the whole, may well blind us to occasional ruggedness of metre and language, abrupt transitions from figure to figure and other alleged blemishes, some of which may not have seemed such to the poet’s contemporaries (e.g. the repetition of the acrostic word, far more frequent in Psalm cxix.); and some disappear on revision of the text.

Verse 5, perhaps: He swallowed me up (Jer. li. 34) and begirt my head (Septuagint) with gloom (אפלה Is. lviii. 10, cf. verse 6, yet cf. also הלאה, Neh. ix. 32). Verse 14: all my people, rather all peoples (Heb. MSS. and Syr.). Verse 16b, rd. הפלישני, He made me bore (i.e. grovel) in the ashes: cf. Jer. vi. 26; Ezek. xxvii. 30. Verse 17a should be: ויזנח לעולם נפשי And He cast off my soul for ever: see verse 31; Psalm lxxxviii. 15. Verse 26: "It is good to wait להחיל in silence (דומם Is. xlvii. 5); or It is good that he wait and be silent (כי יחיל ודמם; cf. verse 27). Verse 31, add נפשו, his soul." The verse is a reply to 17a. Verses 34-36 render: "To crush under His feet ... Adonai purposed not (Gen. xx. 10; Psalm lxvi. 18). Verse 39, חי (Gen. v. 5; or חיה Neh. ix. 29) is the necessary second verb: Why doth a mortal complain? (or What ... lament?). Doth a man live by his sins?: Man lives by" righteousness (Ezek. xxxiii. 19). For the wording, cf. Psalm lxxxix. 49. Verse 43a: Thou didst encompass with (rg. סבותה; Hos. xii. 1) anger and pursue us. Syntax as verse 66a. Verse 49, rd. תפונה (cf. ii. 18 also). Verse 51: Mine eye did hurt to herself (לנפשה), By weeping over my people: Verse 48: ch. i. 16; Jer. xxxi. 15. Verse 52: They quelled my life in the pit (Sheol; Psalms xxx. 4, lxxxviii. 4, 7; verse 55); "They brought me down to Abaddon (הרידוני אבדון; cf. Psalm lxxxviii. 12). Verse 58: O plead, Lord, the cause of my soul! O redeem my life!; cf. Psalm cxix. 154. If the prayer for vengeance begins here, Budde’s deep division in the middle of an acrostic letter-group vanishes. Verse 59, rd. עותי, my perverting;" inf. pi. c. suff. obj.; cf. verse 36. Verse 61b repeated by mistake from 60b. Perhaps: Wherewith they dogged my steps: שחרפו עקבתי: Psalm lxxxix. 51 f. Verse 63, rd. קומם, as usual, and נגינתם, as in verse 14 and Job xxx. 9. Verse 65: Thou wilt give them madness (cf. Arab. gunûn; magnûn, mad) of heart; Thou wilt curse and consume them! (תאר תכלם).

Chapter iv.

The poet shows how famine and the sword desolated Zion (verses 1-10). All was Yahweh’s work; a wonder to the heathen world, but accounted for by the crimes of prophets and priests (Jer. xxiii. 11, 14, xxvi. 8, 20 ff., xxix. 21-23), who, like Cain, became homeless wanderers and outcasts (verses 11-16). Vainly did the besieged watch for succours from Egypt (Jer. xxxvii. 5 ff.); and even the last forlorn hope, the flight of Yahweh’s Anointed, King Zedekiah, was doomed to fail (verses 17-20; Jer. xxxix. 4 ff). Edom rejoiced in her ruin (Ezek. xxv. 12; xxxv. 15; Obad.; Psalm cxxxvii. 7); but Zion’s sin is now atoned for (cf. Is. xl. 2), and she may look forward to the judgment of her foe (verses 21-22).

Verse 6d, perhaps: And their ruin tarried not (פירס ולא יחל); cf. Pro. xxiv. 22. Verse 7d: Their body (rd. נויחם) was a sapphire: see Ct. v. 14; Dn. x. 6. Verse 9: Happier were the slain of the sword Than the slain of famine! For they (Septuagint om.), they passed away (הלכו Septuagint; Psalm xxxix. 14) with a stab (Ju. ix. 54; Is. xiii. 15; Jer. li. 4), Suddenly, in the field (פתאם בש′; Jer. xiv. 18). Verse 13, add היא after נביאיה; cf. Ju. xiv. 4; Jer. xxii. 16. Verse 17c: While we watched (Septuagint) continually: בצפותנו צפו. Verse 18: Our steps were curbed (צרו MSS.; see Pro. iv. 12; Job xviii. 7) from walking In our open places (before the city gates: Neh. viii. 1, 3); The completion of our days drew nigh (קרב יום מלאות ימינו; cf. Lev. viii. 33; Job xx. 22), For our end was come (Ezek. vii. 2, 6, &c.). Verse 21, Septuagint om. Uz (dittogr.?); Settler in the Land! (i.e. of Judah; cf. Ezek. xxxv. 10, xxxvi. 5. Perhaps יורשתי הא′ Seizer of the Land).

Chapter v.—A sorrowful supplication, in which the speakers deplore, not the fall of Jerusalem, but their own state of galling dependence and hopeless poverty. They are still suffering for the sins of their fathers, who perished in the catastrophe (verse 7). They are at the mercy of servants (verse 8; cf. 2 Kings xxv. 24; Neh. v. 15: Yea, even their ‘boys’ lorded it over the people), under a tyranny of pashas of the worst type (verses 11 f.). The soil is owned by aliens; and the Jews have to buy their water and firewood (verses 2, 4; cf. Neh. ix. 36 f.). While busy harvesting, they are exposed to the raids of the Bedouins (verse 9). Jackals prowl among the ruins of Zion (verse 18; cf. Neh. iv. 3). And this condition of things has already lasted a very long time (verse 20).

Verses 5 f. transpose and read: To adversaries (לצרים) we submitted, Saying (לאמור), ’We shall be satisfied with bread’ (cf. Jer. xlii. 14); The yoke of our neck they made heavy (Neh. v. 15: הכבידו על העם); We toil, and no rest is allowed us. Verse 13: Nobles endured to grind, And princes staggered under logs (חורים for בחורים, which belongs to verse 14; שרים for נערים. Eccl. x. 7; Is. xxxiv. 12; Neh. iv. 14; 128 v. 7; vi. 17). Verse 19, But Thou... Psalm cii. 13 (ו fell out after preceding ו, verse 18). Verse 22, omit אם; dittogr. of following מא.

Authorship and date.—The tradition of Jeremiah’s authorship cannot be traced higher than the Septuagint version. The prefatory note there may come from a Hebrew MS., but perhaps refers to chapter i. only ("Jeremiah sang this dirge"). The idea that Lamentations was originally appended to Jeremiah in the Hebrew Canon, as it is in the old versions, and was afterwards separated from it and added to the other Megilloth for the liturgical convenience of the Synagogue, rests on the fact that Josephus (Ap. i. 1, 8) and, following him, Jerome and Origen reckon 22 books, taking Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah; whereas the ordinary Jewish reckoning gives 24 books, as in our Hebrew Bibles. There is no evidence that this artificial reckoning according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet was ever much more than a fanciful suggestion. Even in the Septuagint the existing order may not be original. It appears likely that Lamentations was not translated by the same hand as Jeremiah (Nöldeke). Unlike the latter, the Septuagint Lamentations sticks closely to the Massoretic text. The two books can hardly have been united from the first. On the strength of 2 Chron. xxxv. 25, some ancient writers (e.g. Jerome ad Zech. xii. 11) held that Jeremiah composed Lamentations. When, however, Josephus (Ant. x. 5, 1) states that Jeremiah wrote an elegy on Josiah still extant in his day, he may be merely quoting a little too much of Chron. loc. cit.; and it is obvious that he need not mean our book (see Whiston’s note). It is urged, indeed, that the author of Chronicles could not have imagined a prophet to have sympathized with such a king as Zedekiah so warmly as is implied by Lamentations iv. 20; and, therefore, he must have connected the passage with Josiah, the last of the good kings. However that may have been, the Chronicler neither says that Jeremiah wrote all the elegies comprised in The Qinoth, nor does he imply that the entire collection consisted of only five pieces. Rather, the contrary; for he implies that The Qinoth contained not only Jeremiah’s single dirge on Josiah, but also the elegies of all the singing men and singing women, from the time of Josiah’s death (608) down to his own day (3rd century). The untimely fate of Josiah became a stock allusion in dirges. It is not meant that for three centuries the dirge-writers had nothing else to sing of; much less, that they sang of the fall of Jerusalem (presupposed by our book) before its occurrence. Upon the whole, it does not seem probable, either that the Chronicler mistook Lamentations iv. for Jeremiah’s dirge on Josiah, or that the book he calls The Qinoth was identical with our Qinoth. Later writers misunderstood him, because—on the ground of certain obtrusive similarities between Jeremiah and Lamentations (see Driver, L.O.T. p. 433 f.), and the supposed reference in Lamentations iii. 53 ff. to Jeremiah xxxviii. 6 ff., as well as the fact that Jeremiah was the one well-known inspired writer who had lived through the siege of Jerusalem—they naturally enough ascribed this little book to the prophet. It is certainly true that the same emotional temperament, dissolving in tears at the spectacle of the country’s woes, and expressing itself to a great extent in the same or similar language, is noticeable in the author(s) of Lamentations i.-iv. and in Jeremiah. And both refer these woes to the same cause, viz. the sins of the nation, and particularly of its prophets and priests.

This, however, is not enough to prove identity of authorship; and the following considerations militate strongly against the tradition. (i.) The language and style of Lamentations are in general very unlike those of Jeremiah (see the details in Nägelsbach and Löhr); whatever allowance may be made for conventional differences in the phraseology of elegiac poetry and prophetic prose, even of a more or less lyrical cast. (ii.) Lamentations i.-iv. show a knowledge of Ezekiel (cf. Lamentations ii. 4c; Ez. xx. 8, 21; Lam. ii. 14; Ez. xii. 24; xiii. 10, 14; Lam. ii. 15; Ez. xxvii. 3; xxviii. 12; Lam. iv. 20; Ez. xix. 4, 8) and of Is. xl.-lxvi. (Lam. i. 10, מחמדים; Is. lxiv. 10; Lam. i. 15; Is. lxiii. 2; Lam. ii. 1; Is. lxvi. 1; Lam. ii. 2c; Is. xliii. 28; Lam. ii. 13 the 3 verbs; Is. xl. 18, 25; Lam. ii. 15c; Is. lx. 15b; Lam. iii. 26 דומם; Is. xlvii. 5; Lam. iii. 30; Is. i. 6; Lam. iv. 14; Is. lix. 3, 10; Lam. iv. 15; Is. lii. 11; Lam. iv. 17c; Is. xlv. 20; Lam. iv. 22; Is. xl. 2). Jeremiah does not quote Ezekiel; and he could hardly have quoted writings of the age of Cyrus. (iii.) The coincidences of language between Lamentations and certain late Psalms, such as Psalms lxix., lxxiv., lxxx., lxxxviii., lxxxix., cxix., are numerous and significant, at least as a general indication of date. (iv.) The point of view of Lamentations sometimes differs from that of the prophet. This need not be the case in i. 21 f. where the context shows that the enemies are not the Chaldeans, but Judah’s ill neighbours, Edom, Ammon, Moab and the rest (cf. iv. 21 f.; iii. 59-66 may refer to the same foes). Ch. ii. 9c may refer to popular prophecy ("her prophets; cf. verse 14), which would naturally be silenced by the overwhelming falsification of its comfortable predictions (iv. 14 ff.; cf. Jer. xiv. 13; Ezek. vii. 26 f.; Psalm lxxiv. 9). But though Jeremiah was by no means disloyal (Jer. xxxiv. 4 f.), he would hardly have spoken of Zedekiah in the terms of Lam. iv. 20; and the prophet never looked to Egypt for help, as the poet of iv. 17 appears to have done. It must be admitted that Lamentations exhibits, upon the whole, a poet (more) in sympathy with the old life of the nation, whose attitude towards the temple and the king is far more popular than Jeremiah’s" (W. Robertson Smith); cf. i. 4, 10, 19, ii. 6, 7, 20c. (v.) While we find in Lamentations some things that we should not have expected from Jeremiah, we miss other things characteristic of the prophet. There is no trace of his confident faith in the restoration of both Israel and Judah (Jer. iii. 14-18, xxiii. 3-8, xxx.-xxxiii.), nor of his unique doctrine of the New Covenant (Jer. xxxi. 31-34), as a ground of hope and consolation for Zion. The only hope expressed in Lamentations i. is the hope of Divine vengeance on Judah’s malicious rivals (i. 21 f.); and even this is wanting from ch. ii. Chapter iii. finds comfort in the thought of Yahweh’s unfailing mercy; but ends with a louder cry for vengeance. Chapter iv. suggests neither hope nor consolation, until the end, where we have an assurance that Zion’s punishment is complete, and she will not again be exiled (iv. 21 f.). The last word is woe for Edom. In chapter v. we have a prayer for restoration: Make us return, O Yahweh, and we shall return! (i.e. to our pristine state). Had Jeremiah been the author, we should have expected something more positive and definitely prophetic in tone and spirit. (The author of chapter iii. seems to have felt this. It was apparently written in view of chapter ii. as a kind of religious counterpoise to its burden of despair, which it first takes up, verses 1-20, and then dissipates, verses 21 ff.). (vi.) It seems almost superfluous to add that, in the brief and troubled story of the prophet’s life after the fall of the city Jer. xxxix.-xliv.), it is difficult to specify an occasion when he may be supposed to have enjoyed the necessary leisure and quiet for the composition of these elaborate and carefully constructed pieces, in a style so remote from his ordinary freedom and spontaneity of utterance. And if at the very end of his stormy career he really found time and inclination to write anything of this nature, we may wonder why it was not included in the considerable and somewhat miscellaneous volume of his works, or at least mentioned in the chapters which relate to his public activity after the catastrophe.

Budde’s date, 550 B.C., might not be too early for chapter v., if it stood alone. But it was evidently written as the close of the book, and perhaps to complete the number of five divisions, after the model of the Pentateuch; which would bring it below the date of Ezra (457 B.C.). And this date is supported by internal indications. The Divine forgetfulness has already lasted a very long time since the catastrophe (for ever, verse 20); which seems to imply the lapse of much more than thirty-six years (cf. Zech. i. 12). The hill of Zion is still a deserted site haunted by jackals, as it was when Nehemiah arrived, 445 B.C. (Neh. i. 3, ii. 3, 13, 17, iv. 3). And the conditions, political and economic, seem to agree with what is told us by Nehemiah of the state of things which he found, and which prevailed before his coming: cf. esp. Neh. v. 2-5 with Lamentations 129 v. 2, 10, and Neh. v. 15 with Lamentations v. 5, 8. There is nothing in chapter i. which Nehemiah himself might not have written, had he been a poet (cf. Neh. i. 4). The narrative of Neh. xiii. throws light on verse 10; and there are many coincidences of language, e.g. The Province (of Judea), Neh. i. 3, cf. verse 1; adversaries (צרים), of Judah’s hostile neighbours, verse 7, Neh. iv. 11; made my strength stumble, verse 14, cf. Neh. iv. 4 (Heb.); the prayers, verses 21 f., Neh. iv. 4 f. (Heb. iii. 36 f.), are similar. The memory of what is told in Neh. iv. 5 (11), Ezra iv. 23 f., v. 5, may perhaps have suggested the peculiar term משבת, stoppage, arrest, verse 7. With verse 3 Judah migrated from oppression; From greatness of servitude; She settled among the nations, Without finding a resting-place, cf. Neh. v. 18 end, Jer. xl. 11 f. The remnant of the captivity (Neh. i. 2 f.) became much attenuated (cf. verse 4), because all who could escape from the galling tyranny of the foreigner left the country (cf. verse 6). Verses 11, 19 (dearth of food), 20 (danger in the field, starvation in the house) agree curiously with Neh. v. 6, 9 f.

Chapters ii. and iv. can hardly be dated earlier than the beginning of the Persian period. They might then have been written by one who, as a young man of sixteen or twenty, had witnessed the terrible scenes of fifty years before. If, however, as is generally recognized, these poems are not the spontaneous and unstudied outpourings of passionate grief, but compositions of calculated art and studied effects, written for a purpose, it is obvious that they need not be contemporary. A poet of a later generation might have sung of the great drama in this fashion. The chief incidents and episodes would be deeply graven in the popular memory; and it is the poet’s function to make the past live again. There is much metaphor (i. 13-15, ii. 1-4, iii. 1-18, iv. 1 ff.), and little detail beyond the horrors usual in long sieges (see Deut. xxviii. 52 ff.; 2 Kings vi. 28 f.) Acquaintance with the existing literature and the popular reminiscences of the last days of Jerusalem would supply an ample foundation for all that we find in these poems.

Literature.—The older literature is fully given by Nägelsbach in Lange’s Bibelwerk A.T. xv. (1868, Eng. trans., 1871, p. 17). Among commentaries may be noticed those of Kalkar (in Latin) (1836); O. Thenius in Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch (1855), who ascribes chapters ii. and iv. to Jeremiah (comp. K. Budde in Z.A.T.W., 1882, p. 45); Vaihinger (1857); Neumann (1858); H. Ewald in his Dichter, vol. i. pt. ii. (2nd ed., 1866); Engelhardt (1867); Nägelsbach, op. cit. (1868); E. Gerlach, Die Klagelied. Jer. (1868); A. Kamphausen in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk iii. (1868); C. F. Keil (1872) (Eng. trans., 1874); Payne Smith in The Speaker’s Commentary; Reuss, La Bible: poésie lyrique (1879); T. K. Cheyne, at end of Jeremiah, Pulpit Commentary (1883-1885); E. H. Plumptre, in Ellicott’s O.T. for English Readers (1884); S. Oettli in Strack-Zöckler’s Kurzgef. Komm. A.T. vii. (1889); M. Löhr (1891) and again Handkommentar zum A.T. (1893); F. Baethgen ap. Kautzsch, Die Heilige Schrift d. A.T. (1894); W. F. Adeney, Expositor’s Bible (1895); S. Minocchi, Le Lamentazioni di Geremia (Rome, 1897); and K. Budde, Fünf Megillot, in Kurzer Hd.-Comm. zum A. T. (1898).

For textual and literary criticism see also Houbigant, Notae Criticae, ii. 477-483 (1777); E. H. Rodhe, Num Jeremias Threnos scripserit quaestiones (Lundae, 1871); F. Montet, Étude sur le livre des Lamentations (Geneva, 1875); G. Bickell, Carmina V. T. metrice, 112-120 (1882), and Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunde des Morgenlandes, viii. 101 ff. (1894) (Cf. also his Dichtungen der Hebräer, i. 87-108, 1882); Merkel, Über das A.T. Buch der Klagelieder (Halle, 1889); J. Dyserinck, Theologisch Tijdschrift, xxvi. 359 ff. (1892); S. A. Fries, Parallele zwischen Thr. iv., v. und der Makkabäerzeit,Z.A.T.W., xiii. 110 ff. (1893) (chaps. iv. v. Maccabean; i.-iii. Jeremiah’s); and on the other side Löhr, Z.A.T.W. xiv. 51 ff. (1894); id. ib., p. 31 ff., Der Sprachgebrauch des Buches der Klagelieder; and Löhr, Threni iii. und die jeremianische Autorschaft des Buches der Klagelieder, Z.A.T.W., xxiv. 1 ff. (1904).

On the prosody, see (besides the works of Bickell and Dyserinck) K. Budde, Das hebräische Klagelied, Z.A.T.W., ii. 1 ff. (1882), iii. 299 ff. (1883), xi. 234 ff. (1891), xii. 31 ff. 261 ff. (1892); Preussische Jahrbücher, lxxiii. 461 ff. (1893); and C. J. Ball, The Metrical Structure of Qinoth, P.S.B.A. (March 1887). (The writer was then unacquainted with Budde’s previous labours.)

The following may also be consulted, Nöldeke, Die A.T. Literatur, pp. 142-148 (1868); Seinecke, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, ii. 29 ff. (1884); Stade, Gesch. p. 701, n. 1 (1887); Smend in Z.A.T.W. (1888), p. 62 f.; Steinthal, Die Klagelieder Jer. in Bibel und Rel.-philosophie, 16-33 (1890); Driver, L.O.T. (1891), p. 428, The Lamentations; and Cheyne’s article Lamentations (Book), in Enc. Bibl. iii.

(C. J. B.*)

LAMETH, ALEXANDRE THÉODORE VICTOR, Comte de (1760-1829), French soldier and politician, was born in Paris on the 20th of October 1760. He served in the American War of Independence under Rochambeau, and in 1789 was sent as deputy to the States General by the nobles of the bailliage of Péronne. In the Constituent Assembly he formed with Barnave and Adrien Duport a sort of association called the Triumvirate, which controlled a group of about forty deputies forming the advanced left of the Assembly. He presented a famous report in the Constituent Assembly on the organization of the army, but is better known by his eloquent speech on the 28th of February 1791, at the Jacobin Club, against Mirabeau, whose relations with the court were beginning to be suspected, and who was a personal enemy of Lameth. However, after the flight of the king to Varennes, Lameth became reconciled with the court. He served in the army as maréchal-de-camp under Luckner and Lafayette, but was accused of treason on the 15th of August 1792, fled the country, and was imprisoned by the Austrians. After his release he engaged in commerce at Hamburg with his brother Charles and the duc d’Aiguillon, and did not return to France until the Consulate. Under the Empire he was made prefect successively in several departments, and in 1810 was created a baron. In 1814 he attached himself to the Bourbons, and under the Restoration was appointed prefect of Somme, deputy for Seine-Inférieure and finally deputy for Seine-et-Oise, in which capacity he was a leader of the Liberal opposition. He died in Paris on the 18th of March 1829. He was the author of an important History of the Constituent Assembly (Paris, 2 vols., 1828-1829).

Of his two brothers, Théodore Lameth (1756-1854) served in the American war, sat in the Legislative Assembly as deputy from the department of Jura, and became maréchal-de-camp; and Charles Malo François Lameth (1757-1832), who also served in America, was deputy to the States General of 1789, but emigrated early in the Revolution, returned to France under the Consulate, and was appointed governor of Würzburg under the Empire. Like Alexandre, Charles joined the Bourbons, succeeding Alexandre as deputy in 1829.

See F. A. Aulard, Les Orateurs de l’Assemblée Constituante (Paris, 1905); also M. Tourneux, Bibliog. de l’histoire de Paris (vol. iv., 1906, s.v. Lameth).

LAMETTRIE, JULIEN OFFRAY DE (1709-1751), French physician and philosopher, the earliest of the materialistic writers of the Illumination, was born at St Malo on the 25th of December 1709. After studying theology in the Jansenist schools for some years, he suddenly decided to adopt the profession of medicine. In 1733 he went to Leiden to study under Boerhaave, and in 1742 returned to Paris, where he obtained the appointment of surgeon to the guards. During an attack of fever he made observations on himself with reference to the action of quickened circulation upon thought, which led him to the conclusion that psychical phenomena were to be accounted for as the effects of organic changes in the brain and nervous system. This conclusion he worked out in his earliest philosophical work, the Histoire naturelle de l’âme, which appeared about 1745. So great was the outcry caused by its publication that Lamettrie was forced to take refuge in Leiden, where he developed his doctrines still more boldly and completely, and with great originality, in L’Homme machine (Eng. trans., London, 1750; ed. with introd. and notes, J. Assézat, 1865), and L’Homme plante, treatises based upon principles of the most consistently materialistic character. The ethics of these principles were worked out in Discours sur le bonheur, La Volupté, and L’Art de jouir, in which the end of life is found in the pleasures of the senses, and virtue is reduced to self-love. Atheism is the only means of ensuring the happiness of the world, which has been rendered impossible by the wars brought about by theologians. The soul is only the thinking part of the body, and with the body it passes away. When death comes, the farce is over (la farce est jouée), therefore let us take our pleasure while we can. Lamettrie has been called the Aristippus of modern materialism. So strong was the feeling against him 130 that in 1748 he was compelled to quit Holland for Berlin, where Frederick the Great not only allowed him to practise as a physician, but appointed him court reader. He died on the 11th of November 1751. His collected Œuvres philosophiques appeared after his death in several editions, published in London, Berlin and Amsterdam respectively.

The chief authority for his life is the Éloge written by Frederick the Great (printed in Assézat’s ed. of Homme machine). In modern times Lamettrie has been judged less severely; see F. A. Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus (Eng. trans. by E. C. Thomas, ii. 1880); Nérée Quépat (i.e. René Paquet), La Mettrie, sa vie et ses œuvres (1873, with complete history of his works); J. E. Poritzky, J. O. de Lamettrie, Sein Leben und seine Werke (1900); F. Picavet, La Mettrie et la critique allemande, in Compte rendu des séances de l’Acad. des Sciences morales et politiques, xxxii. (1889), a reply to German rehabilitations of Lamettrie.

LAMIA, in Greek mythology, queen of Libya. She was beloved by Zeus, and when Hera robbed her of her children out of jealousy, she killed every child she could get into her power (Diod. Sic. xx. 41; Schol. Aristophanes, Pax, 757). Hence Lamia came to mean a female bogey or demon, whose name was used by Greek mothers to frighten their children; from the Greek she passed into Roman demonology. She was represented with a woman’s face and a serpent’s tail. She was also known as a sort of fiend, the prototype of the modern vampire, who in the form of a beautiful woman enticed young men to her embraces, in order that she might feed on their life and heart’s blood. In this form she appears in Goethe’s Die Braut von Corinth, and Keats’s Lamia. The name Lamia is clearly the feminine form of Lamus, king of the Laestrygones (q.v.). At some early period, or in some districts, Lamus and Lamia (both, according to some accounts, children of Poseidon) were worshipped as gods; but the names did not attain general currency. Their history is remarkably like that of the malignant class of demons in Germanic and Celtic folk-lore. Both names occur in the geographical nomenclature of Greece and Asia Minor; and it is probable that the deities belong to that religion which spread from Asia Minor over Thrace into Greece.

LAMMAS (O. Eng. hlammaesse, hlafmaesse, from hlaf, loaf, and maesse, mass, loaf-mass), originally in England the festival of the wheat harvest celebrated on the 1st of August, O.S. It was one of the old quarter-days, being equivalent to midsummer, the others being Martinmas, equivalent to Michaelmas, Candlemas (Christmas) and Whitsuntide (Easter). Some rents are still payable in England at Lammastide, and in Scotland it is generally observed, but on the 12th of August, since the alteration of the calendar in George II.’s reign. Its name was in allusion to the custom that each worshipper should present in the church a loaf made of the new wheat as an offering of the first-fruits.

A relic of the old open-field system of agriculture survives in the so-called Lammas Lands. These were lands enclosed and held in severalty during the growing of corn and grass and thrown open to pasturage during the rest of the year for those who had common rights. These commoners might be the several owners, the inhabitants of a parish, freemen of a borough, tenants of a manor, &c. The opening of the fields by throwing down the fences took place on Lammas Day (12th of August) for corn-lands and on Old Midsummer Day (6th of July) for grass. They remained open until the following Lady Day. Thus, in law, lammas lands belong to the several owners in fee-simple subject for half the year to the rights of pasturage of other people (Baylis v. Tyssen-Amherst, 1877, 6 Ch. D., 50).

See further F. Seebohm, The English Village Community; C. I. Elton, Commons and Waste Lands; P. Vinogradoff, Villainage in England.

LÄMMERGEYER (Ger. Lämmergeier, Lamm, lamb, and Geier, vulture), or bearded vulture, the Falco barbatus of Linnaeus and the Gypaetus barbatus of modern ornithologists, one of the grandest birds-of-prey of the Palaearctic region—inhabiting lofty mountain chains from Portugal to the borders of China, though within historic times it has been exterminated in several of its ancient haunts. Its northern range in Europe does not seem to have extended farther than the southern frontier of Bavaria, or the neighbourhood of Salzburg;1 but in Asia it formerly reached a higher latitude, having been found even so lately as 1830 in the Amur region where, according to G. F. Radde (Beitr. Kenntn. Russ. Reichs, xxiii. p. 467), it has now left but its name. It is not uncommon on many parts of the Himalayas, where it breeds; and on the mountains of Kumaon and the Punjab, and is the golden eagle of most Anglo-Indians. It is found also in Persia, Palestine, Crete and Greece, the Italian Alps, Sicily, Sardinia and Mauritania.

In some external characters the lämmergeyer is intermediate between the families Vulturidae and Falconidae, and the opinion of systematists has from time to time varied as to its proper position. It is now generally agreed, however, that it is more closely allied with the eagles than with the vultures, and the sub-family Gypaëtinae of the Falconidae has been formed to contain it.

The whole length of the bird is from 43 to 46 in., of which, however, about 20 are due to the long cuneiform tail, while the pointed wings measure more than 30 in. from the carpal joint to the tip. The top of the head is white, bounded by black, which, beginning in stiff bristly feathers turned forwards over the base of the beak, proceeds on either side of the face in a well-defined band to the eye, where it bifurcates into two narrow stripes, of which the upper one passes above and beyond that feature till just in front of the scalp it suddenly turns upwards across the head and meets the corresponding stripe from the opposite side, enclosing the white forehead already mentioned, while the lower stripe extends beneath the eye about as far backwards and then suddenly stops. A tuft of black, bristly feathers projects beardlike from the base of the mandible, and gives the bird one of its commonest epithets in many languages. The rest of the head, the neck, throat and lower parts generally are clothed with lanceolate feathers of a pale tawny colour—sometimes so pale as to be nearly white beneath; while the scapulars, back and wing-coverts generally, are of a glossy greyish-black, most of the feathers having a white shaft and a median tawny line. The quill-feathers, both of the wings and tail, are of a dark blackish-grey. The irides are of a light orange, and the sclerotic tunics—equivalent to the white of the eye in most animals—which in few birds are visible, are in this very conspicuous and of a bright scarlet, giving it an air of great ferocity. In the young of the year the whole head, neck and throat are clothed in dull black, and most of the feathers of the mantle and wing-coverts are broadly tipped and mesially streaked with tawny or lightish-grey.

The lämmergeyer breeds early in the year. The nest is of large size, built of sticks, lined with soft material and placed on a ledge of rock—a spot being chosen, and often occupied for many years, which is nearly always difficult of access. Here in the month of February a single egg is usually laid. This is more than 3 in. in length by nearly 2½ in breadth, of a pale but lively brownish-orange. The young when in the nest are clad in down of a dirty white, varied with grey on the head and neck, and with ochraceous in the iliac region.

There is much discrepancy as to the ordinary food of the lämmergeyer, some observers maintaining that it lives almost entirely on carrion, offal and even ordure; but there is no question of its frequently taking living prey, and it is reasonable to suppose that this bird, like so many others, is not everywhere uniform in its habits. Its name shows it to be the reputed enemy of shepherds, and it is in some measure owing to their hostility that it has been exterminated in so many parts of its European range. But the lämmergeyer has also a great partiality for bones, which when small enough it swallows. When they are too large, it is said to soar with them to a great height and drop them on a rock or stone that they may be broken into pieces of convenient size. Hence its name ossifrage,2 by which the 131 Hebrew Peres is rightly translated in the Authorized Version of the Bible (Lev. xi. 13; Deut. xiv. 12)—a word corrupted into osprey, and applied to a bird which has no habit of the kind.

The lämmergeyer of north-eastern and south Africa is specifically distinct, and is known as Gypaetus meridionalis or G. nudipes. In habits it resembles the northern bird, from which it differs in little more than wanting the black stripe below the eye and having the lower part of the tarsus bare of feathers. It is the golden eagle of Bruce’s Travels, and has been beautifully figured by Joseph Wolf in E. Rüppell’s Syst. Übers. der Vögel Nord-Ost-Afrika’s (Taf. 1).

(A. N.)

1 See a paper by Dr Girtanner on this bird in Switzerland (Verhandl. St-Gall. naturw. Gesellschaft, 1869-1870, pp. 147-244).

2 Among other crimes