Chapter 10

(A. S. C.)

1The prevalence of fashion in the above-mentioned sorts of embroidery during the 16th century is marked by the number of pattern-books then published. In Venice a work of this class was issued by Alessandro Pagannino in 1527; another of a similar nature, printed by Pierre Quinty, appeared in the same year at Cologne; and LaFleur de la science de pourtraicture et patrons de broderie, façon arabicque et ytalique, was published at Paris in 1530. From these early dates until the beginning of the 17th century pattern-books for embroidery in Italy, France, Germany and England were published in great abundance. The designs contained in many of those dating from the early 16th century were to be worked for costumes and hangings, and consisted of scrolls, arabesques, birds, animals, flowers, foliage, herbs and grasses. So far, however, as their reproduction as laces might be concerned, the execution of complicated work was involved which none but practised lace-workers, such as those who arose a century later, could be expected to undertake.2A very complete account of how these conditions began and developed at Alençon, for instance, is given in Madame Despierre’sHistoire du Point d’Alençon(1886) to which is appended an interesting and annotated list of merchants, designers and makers of Point d’Alençon.3E.g.The family of Camusat at Alençon from 1602 until 1795.4The picture, however, as Seguin has pointed out, was probably painted some thirty years later, and by Jean Matsys.5See the poetical skitRévolte des passements et broderies, written by Mademoiselle de la Tousse, cousin of Madame de Sévigné, in the middle of the 17th century, which marks the favour which foreign laces at that time commanded amongst the leaders of French fashion. It is fairly evident too that the French laces themselves, known as “bisette,” “gueuse,” “campane” and “mignonette,” were small and comparatively insignificant works, without pretence to design.6Useful information has been communicated to the writer of the present article on lace by Mrs B. Wishaw of Seville.7See Felkin’sMachine-wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufactures.8After 1650 the lace-workers at Alençon and its neighbourhood produced work of a daintier kind than that which was being made by the Venetians. As a rule the hexagonalbridegrounds of Alençon laces are smaller than similar details in Venetian laces. The average size of a diagonal taken from angle to angle in an Alençon (or so-called Argentan) hexagon was about one-sixth of an inch, and each side of the hexagon was about one-tenth of an inch. An idea of the minuteness of the work can be formed from the fact that a side of a hexagon would be overcast with some nine or ten buttonhole stitches.

2A very complete account of how these conditions began and developed at Alençon, for instance, is given in Madame Despierre’sHistoire du Point d’Alençon(1886) to which is appended an interesting and annotated list of merchants, designers and makers of Point d’Alençon.

3E.g.The family of Camusat at Alençon from 1602 until 1795.

4The picture, however, as Seguin has pointed out, was probably painted some thirty years later, and by Jean Matsys.

5See the poetical skitRévolte des passements et broderies, written by Mademoiselle de la Tousse, cousin of Madame de Sévigné, in the middle of the 17th century, which marks the favour which foreign laces at that time commanded amongst the leaders of French fashion. It is fairly evident too that the French laces themselves, known as “bisette,” “gueuse,” “campane” and “mignonette,” were small and comparatively insignificant works, without pretence to design.

6Useful information has been communicated to the writer of the present article on lace by Mrs B. Wishaw of Seville.

7See Felkin’sMachine-wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufactures.

8After 1650 the lace-workers at Alençon and its neighbourhood produced work of a daintier kind than that which was being made by the Venetians. As a rule the hexagonalbridegrounds of Alençon laces are smaller than similar details in Venetian laces. The average size of a diagonal taken from angle to angle in an Alençon (or so-called Argentan) hexagon was about one-sixth of an inch, and each side of the hexagon was about one-tenth of an inch. An idea of the minuteness of the work can be formed from the fact that a side of a hexagon would be overcast with some nine or ten buttonhole stitches.

LACE-BARK TREE,a native of Jamaica, known botanically asLagetta lintearia, from its native name lagetto. The inner bark consists of numerous concentric layers of interlacing fibres resembling in appearance lace. Collars and other articles of apparel have been made of the fibre, which is also used in the manufacture of whips, &c. The tree belongs to the natural order Thymelaeaceae, and is grown in hothouses in Britain.

LACEDAEMON,in historical times an alternative name ofLaconia(q.v.). Homer uses only the former, and in some passages seems to denote by it the Achaean citadel, the Therapnae of later times, in contrast to the lower town Sparta (G. Gilbert,Studien zur altspartanischen Geschichte, Göttingen, 1872, p. 34 foll.). It is described by the epithetsκοίλη(hollow) andκητώεσσα(spacious or hollow), and is probably connected etymologically withλάκκος,lacus, any hollow place. Lacedaemon is now the name of a separate department, which had in 1907 a population of 87,106.

LACÉPÈDE, BERNARD GERMAIN ÉTIENNE DE LA VILLE,Comte de(1756-1825), French naturalist, was born at Agen in Guienne on the 26th of December 1756. His education was carefully conducted by his father, and the early perusal of Buffon’sNatural Historyawakened his interest in that branch of study, which absorbed his chief attention. His leisure he devoted to music, in which, besides becoming a good performer on the piano and organ, he acquired considerable mastery of composition, two of his operas (which were never published) meeting with the high approval of Gluck; in 1781-1785 he also brought out in two volumes hisPoétique de la musique. Meantime he wrote two treaties,Essai sur l’électricité(1781) andPhysique générale et particulière(1782-1784), which gained him the friendship of Buffon, who in 1785 appointed him subdemonstrator in the Jardin du Roi, and proposed to him to become the continuator of hisHistoire naturelle. This continuation was published under the titlesHistoire des quadrupèdes ovipares et des serpents(2 vols., 1788-1789) andHistoire naturelle des reptiles(1789). After the Revolution Lacépède became a member of the legislative assembly, but during the Reign of Terror he left Paris, his life having become endangered by his disapproval of the massacres. When the Jardin du Roi was reorganized as the Jardin des Plantes, Lacépède was appointed to the chair allocated to the study of reptiles and fishes. In 1798 he published the first volume ofHistoire naturelle des poissons, the fifth volume appearing in 1803; and in 1804 appeared hisHistoire des cétacés. From this period till his death the part he took in politics prevented him making any further contribution of importance to science. In 1799 he became a senator, in 1801 president of the senate, in 1803 grand chancellor of the legion of honour, in 1804 minister of state, and at the Restoration in 1819 he was created a peer of France. He died at Épinay on the 6th of October 1825. During the latter part of his life he wroteHistoire générale physique et civile de l’Europe, published posthumously in 18 vols., 1826.

A collected edition of his works on natural history was published in 1826.

LACEWING-FLY,the name given to neuropterous insects of the familiesHemerobiidaeandChrysopidae, related to the ant-lions, scorpion-flies, &c., with long filiform antennae, longish bodies and two pairs of large similar richly veined wings. The larvae are short grubs beset with hair-tufts and tubercles. They feed uponAphidaeor “green fly” and cover themselves with the emptied skins of their prey. Lacewing-flies of the genusChrysopaare commonly called golden-eye flies.

LA CHAISE, FRANÇOIS DE(1624-1709), father confessor of Louis XIV., was born at the château of Aix in Forey on the 25th of August 1624, being the son of Georges d’Aix, seigneur de la Chaise, and of Renée de Rochefort. On his mother’s side he was a grandnephew of Père Coton, the confessor of Henry IV. He became a novice of the Society of Jesus before completing his studies at the university of Lyons, where, after taking the final vows, he lectured on philosophy to students attracted by his fame from all parts of France. Through the influence of Camille de Villeroy, archbishop of Lyons, Père de la Chaise was nominated in 1674 confessor of Louis XIV., who intrusted him during the lifetime of Harlay de Champvallon, archbishop of Paris, with the administration of the ecclesiastical patronage of the crown. The confessor united his influence with that of Madame de Maintenon to induce the king to abandon his liaison with Madame de Montespan. More than once at Easter he is said to have had a convenient illness which dispensed him from granting absolution to Louis XIV. With the fall of Madame de Montespan and the ascendancy of Madame de Maintenon his influence vastly increased. The marriage between Louis XIV. and Madame de Maintenon was celebrated in his presence at Versailles, but there is no reason for supposing that the subsequent coolness between him and Madame de Maintenon arose from his insistence on secrecy in this matter. During the long strife over the temporalities of the Gallican Church between Louis XIV. and Innocent XI. Père de la Chaise supported the royal prerogative, though he used his influence at Rome to conciliate the papal authorities. He must be held largely responsible for the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, but not for the brutal measures applied against the Protestants. He exercised a moderating influence on Louis XIV.’s zeal against the Jansenists, and Saint-Simon, who was opposed to him in most matters, does full justice to his humane and honourable character. Père de la Chaise had a lasting and unalterable affection for Fénelon, which remained unchanged by the papal condemnation of theMaximes. In spite of failing faculties he continued his duties as confessor to Louis XIV. to the end of his long life. He died on the 20th of January 1709. The cemetery of Père-la-Chaise in Paris stands on property acquired by the Jesuits in 1826, and not, as is often stated, on property personally granted to him.

See R. Chantelauze,Le Père de la Chaize. Études d’histoire religieuse(Paris and Lyons, 1859).

LA CHAISE-DIEU,a town of central France, in the department of Haute Loire, 29 m. N.N.W. of Le Puy by rail. Pop. (1906) 1203. The town, which is situated among fir and pine woods, 3500 ft. above the sea, preserves remains of its ramparts and some houses of the 14th and 15th centuries, but owes its celebrity to a church, which, after the cathedral of Clermont-Ferrand, is the most remarkable Gothic building in Auvergne. The west façade, approached by a flight of steps, is flanked by two massive towers. The nave and aisles are of equal height and are separated from the choir by a stone rood screen. Thechoir, terminating in an apse with radiating chapel, contains the fine tomb and statue of Clement VI., carved stalls and some admirable Flemish tapestries of the early 16th century. There is a ruined cloister on the south side. The church, which dates from the 14th century, was built at the expense of Pope Clement VI., and belonged to a powerful Benedictine abbey founded in 1043. There are spacious monastic buildings of the 18th century. The abbey was formerly defended by fortifications, the chief survival of which is a lofty rectangular keep to the south of the choir. Trade in timber and the making of lace chiefly occupy the inhabitants of the town.

LA CHALOTAIS, LOUIS RENÉ DE CARADEUC DE(1701-1785), French jurist, was born at Rennes, on the 6th of March 1701. He was for 60 years procureur général at the parliament of Brittany. He was an ardent opponent of the Jesuits; drew up in 1761 for the parliament a memoir on the constitutions of the Order, which did much to secure its suppression in France; and in 1763 published a remarkable “Essay on National Education,” in which he proposed a programme of scientific studies as a substitute for those taught by the Jesuits. The same year began the conflict between the Estates of Brittany and the governor of the province, the duc d’Aiguillon (q.v.). The Estates refused to vote the extraordinary imposts demanded by the governor in the name of the king. La Chalotais was the personal enemy of d’Aiguillon, who had served him an ill turn with the king, and when the parliament of Brittany sided with the Estates, he took the lead in its opposition. The parliament forbade by decrees the levy of imposts to which the Estates had not consented. The king annulling these decrees, all the members of the parliament but twelve resigned (October 1764 to May 1765). The government considered La Chalotais one of the authors of this affair. At this time the secretary of state who administered the affairs of the province, Louis Philypeaux, duc de la Vrillière, comte de Saint-Florentin (1705-1777), received two anonymous and abusive letters. La Chalotais was suspected of having written them, and three experts in handwriting declared that they were by him. The government therefore arrested him, his son and four other members of the parliament. The arrest made a great sensation. There was much talk of “despotism.” Voltaire stated that the procureur général, in his prison of Saint Malo, was reduced, for lack of ink, to write his defence with a toothpick dipped in vinegar—which was apparently pure legend; but public opinion all over France was strongly aroused against the government. On the 16th of November 1765 a commission of judges was named to take charge of the trial. La Chalotais maintained that the trial was illegal; being procureur général he claimed the right to be judged by the parliament of Rennes, or failing this by the parliament of Bordeaux, according to the custom of the province. The judges did not dare to pronounce a condemnation on the evidence of experts in handwriting, and at the end of a year, things remained where they were at the first. Louis XV. then decided on a sovereign act, and brought the affair before his council, which without further formality decided to send the accused into exile. That expedient but increased the popular agitation;philosophes, members of the parliament, patriot Bretons and Jansenists all declared that La Chalotais was the victim of the personal hatred of the duc d’Aiguillon and of the Jesuits. The government at last gave way, and consented to recall the members of the parliament of Brittany who had resigned. This parliament, when it met again, after the formal accusation of the duc d’Aiguillon, demanded the recall of La Chalotais. This was accorded in 1775, and La Chalotais was allowed to transmit his office to his son. In this affair public opinion showed itself stronger than the absolutism of the king. The opposition to the royal power gained largely through it, and it may be regarded as one of the preludes to the revolution of 1789. La Chalotais, who was personally a violent, haughty and unsympathetic character, died at Rennes on the 12th of July 1785.

See, besides theComptes-Rendus des Constitutions des Jésuitesand theEssai d’éducation nationale, theMémoires de la Chalotais(3 vols., 1766-1767). Two works containing detailed bibliographies are Marion,La Bretagne et le duc d’Aiguillon(Paris, 1893), and B. Pocquet,Le Duc d’Aiguillon et La Chalotais(Paris, 1901). See also a controversy between these two authors in theBulletin critiquefor 1902.

LA CHARITÉ,a town of central France in the department of Nièvre, on the right bank of the Loire, 17 m. N.N.W. of Nevers on the Paris-Lyon-Méditerranée railway. Pop. (1906) 3990. La Charité possesses the remains of a fine Romanesque basilica, the church of Sainte-Croix, dating from the 11th and early 12th centuries. The plan consists of a nave, rebuilt at the end of the 17th century, transept and choir with ambulatory and side chapels. Surmounting the transept is an octagonal tower of one story, and a square Romanesque tower of much beauty flanks the main portal. There are ruins of the ramparts, which date from the 14th century. The manufacture of hosiery, boots and shoes, files and iron goods, lime and cement and woollen and other fabrics are among the industries; trade is chiefly in wood and iron.

La Charité owes its celebrity to its priory, which was founded in the 8th century and reorganized as a dependency of the abbey of Cluny in 1052. It became the parent of many priories and monasteries, some of them in England and Italy. The possession of the town was hotly contested during the wars of religion of the 16th century, at the end of which its fortifications were dismantled.

LA CHAUSSÉE, PIERRE CLAUDE NIVELLE DE(1692-1754), French dramatist, was born in Paris in 1692. In 1731 he published anÉpître à Clio, a didactic poem in defence of Lériget de la Faye in his dispute with Antoine Houdart de la Motte, who had maintained that verse was useless in tragedy. La Chaussée was forty years old before he produced his first play,La Fausse Antipathie(1734). His second play,Le Préjugé à la mode(1735) turns on the fear of incurring ridicule felt by a man in love with his own wife, a prejudice dispelled in France, according to La Harpe, by La Chaussée’s comedy.L’École des amis(1737) followed, and, after an unsuccessful attempt at tragedy inMaximinien, he returned to comedy inMélanide(1741). InMélanidethe type known ascomédie larmoyanteis fully developed. Comedy was no longer to provoke laughter, but tears. The innovation consisted in destroying the sharp distinction then existing between tragedy and comedy in French literature. Indications of this change had been already offered in the work of Marivaux, and La Chaussée’s plays led naturally to the domestic drama of Diderot and of Sedaine. The new method found bitter enemies. Alexis Piron nicknames the author “le Révérend Père Chaussée,” and ridiculed him in one of his most famous epigrams. Voltaire maintained that thecomédie larmoyantewas a proof of the inability of the author to produce either of the recognized kinds of drama, though he himself produced a play of similar character inL’Enfant prodigue. The hostility of the critics did not prevent the public from shedding tears nightly over the sorrows of La Chaussée’s heroine.L’École des mères(1744) andLa Gouvernante(1747) form, with those already mentioned, the best of his work. The strict moral aims pursued by La Chaussée in his plays seem hardly consistent with his private preferences. He frequented the same gay society as did the comte de Caylus and contributed to theRecueils de ces messieurs. La Chaussée died on the 14th of May 1754. Villemain said of his style that he wrote prosaic verses with purity, while Voltaire, usually an adverse critic of his work, said he was “un des premiers après ceux qui ont du génie.”

For thecomédie larmoyantesee G. Lanson,Nivelle de la Chaussée et la comédie larmoyante(1887).

LACHES(from Anglo-Frenchlachesse, negligence, fromlasche, modernlâche, unloosed, slack), a term for slackness or negligence, used particularly in law to signify negligence on the part of a person in doing that which he is by law bound to do, or unreasonable lapse of time in asserting a right, seeking relief, or claiming a privilege. Laches is frequently a bar to a remedy which might have been had if prosecuted in proper time. Statutes of limitation specify the time within which various classes of actions may be brought. Apart from statutes of limitation courts of equity will often refuse relief to thosewho have allowed unreasonable time to elapse in seeking it, on the principlevigilantibus ac non dormientibus jura subveniunt.

LACHINE,an incorporated town in Jacques Cartier county, Quebec, Canada, 8 m. W. of Montreal, on Lake St Louis, an expansion of the St Lawrence river, and at the upper end of the Lachine canal. Pop. (1901) 5561. It is a station on the Grand Trunk railway and a port of call for steamers plying between Montreal and the Great Lakes. It is a favourite summer resort for the people of Montreal. It was named in 1669 in mockery of its then owner, Robert Cavelier de la Salle (1643-1687), who dreamed of a westward passage to China. In 1689 it was the scene of a terrible massacre of the French by the Iroquois.

LACHISH,a town of great importance in S. Palestine, often mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna tablets. It was destroyed by Joshua for joining the league against the Gibeonites (Joshua x. 31-33) and assigned to the tribe of Judah (xv. 39). Rehoboam fortified it (2 Chron. xi. 9). King Amaziah having fled hither, was here murdered by conspirators (2 Kings xiv. 19). Sennacherib here conducted a campaign (2 Kings xviii. 13) during which Hezekiah endeavoured to make terms with him: the campaign is commemorated by bas-reliefs found in Nineveh, now in the British Museum (see G. Smith’sHistory of Sennacherib, p. 69). It was one of the last cities that resisted Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xxxiv. 7). The meaning of Micah’s denunciation (i. 13) of the city is unknown. TheOnomasticonplaces it 7 m. from Eleutheropolis on the S. road, which agrees with the generally received identification, Tell el-Ḥesi, an important mound excavated for the Palestine Exploration Fund by Petrie and Bliss, 1890-1893. The name is preserved in a small Roman site in the neighbourhood, Umm Lakis, which probably represents a later dwelling-place of the descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the city.

See W. M. Flinders Petrie,Tell el-Hesy, and F. J. Bliss,A Mound of many Cities, both published by the Palestine Exploration Fund.

(R. A. S. M.)

LACHMANN, KARL KONRAD FRIEDRICH WILHELM(1793-1851), German philologist and critic, was born at Brunswick on the 4th of March 1793. He studied at Leipzig and Göttingen, devoting himself mainly to philological studies. In 1815 he joined the Prussian army as a volunteerchasseurand accompanied his detachment to Paris, but did not encounter the enemy. In 1816 he became an assistant master in the Friedrich Werder gymnasium at Berlin, and aprivat-docentat the university. The same summer he became one of the principal masters in the Friedrichs-Gymnasium of Königsberg, where he assisted his colleague, the Germanist Friedrich Karl Köpke (1785-1865) with his edition of Rudolf von Ems’Barlaam und Josaphat(1818), and also assisted his friend in a contemplated edition of the works of Walther von der Vogelweide. In January 1818 he became professor extraordinarius of classical philology in the university of Königsberg, and at the same time began to lecture on Old German grammar and the Middle High German poets. He devoted himself during the following seven years to an extraordinarily minute study of those subjects, and in 1824 obtained leave of absence in order that he might search the libraries of middle and south Germany for further materials. In 1825 Lachmann was nominated extraordinary professor of classical and German philology in the university of Berlin (ordinary professor 1827); and in 1830 he was admitted a member of the Academy of Sciences. The remainder of his laborious and fruitful life as an author and a teacher was uneventful. He died on the 13th of March 1851.

Lachmann, who was the translator of the first volume of P. E. Müller’sSagabibliothek des skandinavischen Altertums(1816), is a figure of considerable importance in the history of German philology (see Rudolf von Raumer,Geschichte der germanischen Philologie, 1870). In his “Habilitationsschrift”Über die ursprüngliche Gestalt des Gedichts der Nibelunge Not(1816), and still more in his review of Hagen’sNibelungenand Benecke’sBonerius, contributed in 1817 to theJenaische Literaturzeitunghe had already laid down the rules of textual criticism and elucidated the phonetic and metrical principles of Middle High German in a manner which marked a distinct advance in that branch of investigation. The rigidly scientific character of his method becomes increasingly apparent in theAuswahl aus den hochdeutschen Dichtern des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts(1820), in the edition of Hartmann’sIwein(1827), in those of Walther von der Vogelweide (1827) and Wolfram von Eschenbach (1833), in the papers “Über das Hildebrandslied,” “Über althochdeutsche Betonung und Verskunst,” “Über den Eingang des Parzivals,” and “Über drei Bruchstücke niederrheinischer Gedichte” published in theAbhandlungenof the Berlin Academy, and inDer Nibelunge Not und die Klage(1826, 11th ed., 1892), which was followed by a critical commentary in 1836. Lachmann’sBetrachtungen über Homer’s Ilias, first published in theAbhandlungenof the Berlin Academy in 1837 and 1841, in which he sought to show that theIliadconsists of sixteen independent “lays” variously enlarged and interpolated, have had considerable influence on modern Homeric criticism (seeHomer), although his views are no longer accepted. His smaller edition of the New Testament appeared in 1831, 3rd ed. 1846; the larger, in two volumes, in 1842-1850. The plan of Lachmann’s edition, explained by himself in theStud. u. Krit.of 1830, is a modification of the unaccomplished project of Bentley. It seeks to restore the most ancient reading current in Eastern MSS., using the consent of the Latin authorities (Old Latin and Greek Western Uncials) as the main proof of antiquity of a reading where the oldest Eastern authorities differ. BesidesPropertius(1816), Lachmann editedCatullus(1829);Tibullus(1829);Genesius(1834);Terentianus Maurus(1836);Babrius(1845);Avianus(1845);Gaius(1841-1842); theAgrimensores Romani(1848-1852);Lucilius(edited after his death by Vahlen, 1876); andLucretius(1850). The last, which was the main occupation of the closing years of his life, from 1845, was perhaps his greatest achievement, and has been characterized by Munro as “a work which will be a landmark for scholars as long as the Latin language continues to be studied.” Lachmann also translated Shakespeare’s sonnets (1820) andMacbeth(1829).See M. Hertz,Karl Lachmann, eine Biographie(1851), where a full list of Lachmann’s works is given; F. Leo,Rede zur Säcularfeier K. Lachmanns(1893); J. Grimm, biography inKleine Schriften; W. Scherer inAllgemeine deutsche Biographie, xvii., and J. E. Sandys,Hist. of Classical Scholarship, iii. (1908), pp. 127-131.

See M. Hertz,Karl Lachmann, eine Biographie(1851), where a full list of Lachmann’s works is given; F. Leo,Rede zur Säcularfeier K. Lachmanns(1893); J. Grimm, biography inKleine Schriften; W. Scherer inAllgemeine deutsche Biographie, xvii., and J. E. Sandys,Hist. of Classical Scholarship, iii. (1908), pp. 127-131.

LACINIUM, PROMUNTURIUM(mod. Capo delle Colonne), 7 m S.E. of Crotona (mod. Cotrone); the easternmost point of Bruttii (mod. Calabria). On the cape still stands a single column of the temple erected to Hera Lacinia, which is said to have been fairly complete in the 16th century, but to have been destroyed to build the episcopal palace at Cotrone. It is a Doric column with capital, about 27 ft. in height. Remains of marble roof-tiles have been seen on the spot (Livy xlii. 3) and architectural fragments were excavated in 1886-1887 by the Archaeological Institute of America. The sculptures found were mostly buried again, but a few fragments, some decorative terra-cottas and a dedicatory inscription to Hera of the 6th centuryB.C., in private possession at Cotrone, are described by F. von Duhn inNotizie degli scavi, 1897, 343 seq. The date of the erection of the temple may be given as 480-440B.C.; it is not recorded by any ancient writer.

See R. Koldewey and O. Puchstein,Die griechischen Tempel in Unteritalien und Sicilien(Berlin 1899, 41).

LA CIOTAT,a coast town of south-eastern France in the department of Bouches-du-Rhône, on the west shore of the Bay of La Ciotat, 26 m. S.E. of Marseilles by rail. Pop. (1906) 10,562. The port is easily accessible and well sheltered. The large shipbuilding yards and repairing docks of the Messageries Maritimes Company give employment to between 2000 and 3000 workmen. Fishing and an active coasting trade are carried on; the town is frequented for sea-bathing. La Ciotat was in ancient times the port of the neighbouring town ofCitharista(now the village of Ceyreste).

LA CLOCHE, JAMES DE[”Prince James Stuart”] (1644?-1669), a character who was brought into the history of England by Lord Acton in 1862 (Home and Foreign Review, i. 146-174: “The Secret History of Charles II.”). From information discovered by Father Boero in the archives of the Jesuits in Rome, Lord Acton averred that Charles II., when a lad at Jersey, had a natural son, James. The evidence follows. On the 2nd of April 1668, as the register of the Jesuit House of Novices at Rome attests, “there entered Jacobus de la Cloche.” His baggage was exiguous, his attire was clerical. He is described as “from the island of Jersey, under the king of England, aged 24.” He possessed two documents in French, purporting to have been written by Charles II. at Whitehall, on the 25th ofSeptember 1665, and on the 7th of February 1667. In both Charles acknowledges James to be his natural son, he styles him “James de la Cloche de Bourg du Jersey,” and avers that to recognize him publicly “would imperil the peace of the kingdoms”—why is not apparent. A third certificate of birth, in Latin, undated, was from Christina of Sweden, who declares that James, previously a Protestant, has been received into the church of Rome at Hamburg (where in 1667-1668 she was residing) on the 29th of July 1667. The next paper purports to be a letter from Charles II. of August 3/13 to Oliva, general of the Jesuits. The king writes, in French, that he has long wished to be secretly received into the church. He therefore desires that James, his son by a young lady “of the highest quality,” and born to him when he was about sixteen, should be ordained a priest, come to England and receive him. Charles alludes to previous attempts of his own to be secretly admitted (1662). James must be sent secretly to London at once, and Oliva must say nothing to Christina of Sweden (then meditating a journey to Rome), and must never write to Charles except when James carries the letter. Charles next writes on August 29/September 9. He is most anxious that Christina should not meet James; if she knows Charles’s design of changing his creed she will not keep it secret, and Charles will infallibly lose his life. With this letter there is another, written when the first had been sealed. Charles insists that James must not be accompanied, as novices were, when travelling, by a Jesuit socius or guardian. Charles’s wife and mother have just heard that this is the rule, but the rule must be broken. James, who is to travel as “Henri de Rohan,” must not come by way of France. Oliva will supply him with funds. On the back of this letter Oliva has written the draft of his brief reply to Charles (from Leghorn, October 14, 1668). He merely says that the bearer, a French gentleman (James spoke only French), will inform the king that his orders have been executed. Besides these two letters is one from Charles to James, of date August 4/14. It is addressed to “Le Prince Stuart,” though none of Charles’s bastards was allowed to bear the Stuart name. James is told that he may desert the clerical profession if he pleases. In that case “you may claim higher titles from us than the duke of Monmouth.” (There was no higher title save prince of Wales!) If Charles and his brother, the duke of York, die childless, “the kingdoms belong to you, and parliament cannot legally oppose you, unless as, at present, they can only elect Protestant kings.” This letter ought to have opened the eyes of Lord Acton and other historians who accept the myth of James de la Cloche. Charles knew that the crown of England was not elective, that there was no Exclusion Act, and that there were legal heirs if he and his brother died without issue. The last letter of Charles is dated November 18/28, and purports to have been brought from England to Oliva by James de la Cloche on his return to Rome. It reveals the fact that Oliva, despite Charles’s orders, did send James by way of France, with asociusor guardian whom he was to pick up in France on his return to England. Charles says that James is to communicate certain matters to Oliva, and come back at once. Oliva is to give James all the money he needs, and Charles will later make an ample donation to the Jesuits. He acknowledges a debt to Oliva of £800, to be paid in six months. The reader will remark that the king has never paid a penny to James or to Oliva, and that Oliva has never communicated directly with Charles. The truth is that all of Charles’s letters are forgeries. This is certain because in all he writes frequently as if his mother, Henrietta Maria, were in London, and constantly in company with him. Now she had left England for France in 1665, and to England she never returned. As the letters—including that to “Prince Stuart”—are all forged, it is clear that de la Cloche was an impostor. His aim had been to get money from Oliva, and to pretend to travel to England, meaning to enjoy himself. He did not quite succeed, for Oliva sent a socius with him into France. His precautions to avoid a meeting with Christina of Sweden were necessary. She knew no more of him than did Charles, and would have exposed him.

The name of James de la Cloche appears no more in documents. He reached Rome in December 1668, and in January a person calling himself “Prince James Stuart” appears in Naples, accompanied by asociusstyling himself a French knight of Malta. Both are on their way to England, but Prince James falls ill and stays in Naples, while his companion departs. The knight of Malta may be a Jesuit. In Naples, Prince James marries a girl of no position, and is arrested on suspicion of being a coiner. To his confessors (he had two in succession) he says that he is a son of Charles II. Our sources are the despatches of Kent, the English agent at Naples, and theLettere, vol. iii., of Vincenzo Armanni (1674), who had his information from one of the confessors of the “Prince.” The viceroy of Naples communicated with Charles II., who disowned the impostor; Prince James, however, was released, and died at Naples in August 1669, leaving a wild will, in which he claims for his son, still unborn, the “apanage” of Monmouth or Wales, “which it is usual to bestow on natural sons of the king.” The son lived till about 1750, a penniless pretender, and writer of begging letters.

It is needless to pursue Lord Acton’s conjectures about later mysterious appearances of James de la Cloche at the court of Charles, or to discuss the legend that his mother was a lady of Jersey—or a sister of Charles! The Jersey myths may be found inThe Man of the Mask(1908), by Monsignor Barnes, who argued that James was the man in the iron mask (seeIron Mask). Later Monsignor Barnes, who had observed that the letter of Charles to Prince James Stuart is a forgery, noticed the impossibility that Charles, in 1668, should constantly write of his mother as resident in London, which she left for ever in 1665.

Who de la Cloche really was it is impossible to discover, but he was a bold and successful swindler, who took in, not only the general of the Jesuits, but Lord Acton and a generation of guileless historians.

(A. L.)

LA CONDAMINE, CHARLES MARIE DE(1701-1774), French geographer and mathematician, was born at Paris on the 28th of January 1701. He was trained for the military profession, but turned his attention to science and geographical exploration. After taking part in a scientific expedition in the Levant (1731), he became a member with Louis Godin and Pierre Bouguer of the expedition sent to Peru in 1735 to determine the length of a degree of the meridian in the neighbourhood of the equator. His associations with his principals were unhappy; the expedition was beset by many difficulties, and finally La Condamine separated from the rest and made his way from Quito down the Amazon, ultimately reaching Cayenne. His was the first scientific exploration of the Amazon. He returned to Paris in 1744 and published the results of his measurements and travels with a map of the Amazon inMém. de l’académie des sciences, 1745 (English translation 1745-1747). On a visit to Rome La Condamine made careful measurements of the ancient buildings with a view to a precise determination of the length of the Roman foot. The journal of his voyage to South America was published in Paris in 1751. He also wrote in favour of inoculation, and on various other subjects, mainly connected with his work in South America. He died at Paris on the 4th of February 1774.

LACONIA(Gr.Λακωνική), the ancient name of the south-eastern district of the Peloponnese, of which Sparta was the capital. It has an area of some 1,048,000 acres, slightly greater than that of Somersetshire, and consists of three well-marked zones running N. and S. The valley of the Eurotas, which occupies the centre, is bounded W. by the chain of Taygetus (mod. Pentedaktylon, 7900 ft.), which starts from the Arcadian mountains on the N., and at its southern extremity forms the promontory of Taenarum (Cape Matapan). The eastern portion of Laconia consists of a far more broken range of hill country, rising in Mt. Parnon to a height of 6365 ft. and terminating in the headland of Malea. The range of Taygetus is well watered and was in ancient times covered with forests which afforded excellent hunting to the Spartans, while it had also large iron mines and quarries of an inferior bluish marble, as well as of the famousrosso anticoof Taenarum. Far poorer are the slopes ofParnon, consisting for the most part of barren limestone uplands scantily watered. The Eurotas valley, however, is fertile, and produces at the present day maize, olives, oranges and mulberries in great abundance. Laconia has no rivers of importance except the Eurotas and its largest tributary the Oenus (mod. Kelefína). The coast,especiallyon the east, is rugged and dangerous. Laconia has few good harbours, nor are there any islands lying off its shores with the exception of Cythera (Cerigo), S. of Cape Malea. The most important towns, besides Sparta and Gythium, were Bryseae, Amyclae and Pharis in the Eurotas plain, Pellana and Belbina on the upper Eurotas, Sellasia on the Oenus, Caryae on the Arcadian frontier, Prasiae, Zarax and Epidaurus Limera on the east coast, Geronthrae on the slopes of Parnon, Boeae, Asopus, Helos, Las and Teuthrone on the Laconian Gulf, and Hippola, Messa and Oetylus on the Messenian Gulf.

The earliest inhabitants of Laconia, according to tradition, were the autochthonous Leleges (q.v.). Minyan immigrants then settled at various places on the coast and even appear to have penetrated into the interior and to have founded Amyclae. Phoenician traders, too, visited the shores of the Laconian Gulf, and there are indications of trade at a very early period between Laconia and Crete,e.g.a number of blocks of green Laconian porphyry from the quarries at Croceae have been found in the palace of Minos at Cnossus. In the Homeric poems Laconia appears as the realm of an Achaean prince, Menelaus, whose capital was perhaps Therapne on the left bank of the Eurotas, S.E. of Sparta; the Achaean conquerors, however, probably contented themselves with a suzerainty over Laconia and part of Messenia (q.v.) and were too few to occupy the whole land. The Achaean kingdom fell before the incoming Dorians, and throughout the classical period the history of Laconia is that of its capital Sparta (q.v.). In 195B.C.the Laconian coast towns were freed from Spartan rule by the Roman general T. Quinctius Flamininus, and became members of the Achaean League. When this was dissolved in 146B.C., they remained independent under the title of the “Confederation of the Lacedaemonians” or “of the Free-Laconians” (κοινὸν τῶν ΛακεδαιμονίωνorἘλευθερολακώνων), the supreme officer of which was aστρατηγός(general) assisted by aταμίας(treasurer). Augustus seems to have reorganized the league in some way, for Pausanias (iii. 21, 6) speaks of him as its founder. Of the twenty-four cities which originally composed the league, only eighteen remained as members by the reign of Hadrian (seeAchaean League). InA.D.395 a Gothic horde under Alaric devastated Laconia, and subsequently it was overrun by large bands of Slavic immigrants. Throughout the middle ages it was the scene of vigorous struggles between Slavs, Byzantines, Franks, Turks and Venetians, the chief memorials of which are the ruined strongholds of Mistra near Sparta, Geráki (anc. Geronthrae) and Monemvasia, “the Gibraltar of Greece,” on the east coast, and Passava near Gythium. A prominent part in the War of Independence was played by the Maniates or Mainotes, the inhabitants of the rugged peninsula formed by the southern part of Taygetus. They had all along maintained a virtual independence of the Turks and until quite recently retained their medieval customs, living in fortified towers and practising the vendetta or blood-feud.

The district has been divided into two departments (nomes), Lacedaemon and Laconia, with their capitals at Sparta and Gythium respectively. Pop. of Laconia (1907) 61,522.

Archaeology.—Until 1904 archaeological research in Laconia was carried on only sporadically. Besides the excavations undertaken at Sparta, Gythium and Vaphio (q.v.), the most important were those at the Apollo sanctuary of Amyclae carried out by C. Tsountas in 1890 (Ἐφημ. ἀρχαιολ.1892, 1 ff.) and in 1904 by A. Furtwängler. At Kampos, on the western side of Taygetus, a small domed tomb of the “Mycenean” age was excavated in 1890 and yielded two leaden statuettes of great interest, while at Arkina a similar tomb of poor construction was unearthed in the previous year. Important inscriptions were found at Geronthrae (Geráki), notably five long fragments of theEdictum Diocletiani, and elsewhere. In 1904 the British Archaeological school at Athens undertook a systematic investigation of the ancient and medieval remains in Laconia. The results, of which the most important are summarized in the articleSparta, are published in the British SchoolAnnual, x. ff. The acropolis of Geronthrae, a hero-shrine at Angelona in the south-eastern highlands, and the sanctuary of Ino-Pasiphae at Thalamae have also been investigated.

Bibliography.—Besides the Greek histories and many of the works cited underSparta, see W. M. Leake,Travels in the Morea(London, 1830), cc. iv.-viii., xxii., xxiii.; E. Curtius,Peloponnesos(Gotha, 1852), ii. 203 ff.; C. Bursian,Geographie von Griechenland(Leipzig, 1868), ii. 102 ff.; Strabo viii. 5; Pausanias iii. and the commentary in J. G. Frazer,Pausanias’s Description of Greece(London, 1898), vol. iii.; W. G. Clark,Peloponnesus(London, 1858), 155 ff.; E. P. Boblaye,Recherches géographiques sur les ruines de la Morée(Paris, 1835), 65 ff.; L. Ross,Reisen im Peloponnes(Berlin, 1841), 158 ff.; W. Vischer,Erinnerungen u. Eindrücke aus Griechenland(Basel, 1857), 360 ff.; J. B. G. M. Bory de Saint-Vincent,Relation du voyage de l’expédition scientifique de Morée(Paris, 1836), cc. 9, 10; G. A. Blouet,Expédition scientifique de Morée(Paris, 1831-1838), ii. 58 ff.; A. Philippson,Der Peloponnes(Berlin, 1892), 155 ff.;Annualof British School at Athens, 1907-8.Inscriptions: Le Bas-Foucart,Voyage archéologique: Inscriptions, Nos. 160-290;Inscriptiones Graecae, v.;Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum(Berlin, 1828), Nos. 1237-1510; Collitz-Bechtel,Sammlung der griech. Dialektinschriften, iii. 2 (Göttingen, 1898), Nos. 4400-4613.Coins:Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Peloponnesus(London, 1887), xlvi. ff., 121 ff.; B. V. Head,Historia Numorum(Oxford, 1887), 363 ff.Cults: S. Wide,Lakonische Kulte(Leipzig, 1893).Ancient roads: W. Loring, “Some Ancient Routes in the Peloponnese” inJournal of Hellenic Studies, xv. 25 ff.

Inscriptions: Le Bas-Foucart,Voyage archéologique: Inscriptions, Nos. 160-290;Inscriptiones Graecae, v.;Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum(Berlin, 1828), Nos. 1237-1510; Collitz-Bechtel,Sammlung der griech. Dialektinschriften, iii. 2 (Göttingen, 1898), Nos. 4400-4613.Coins:Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Peloponnesus(London, 1887), xlvi. ff., 121 ff.; B. V. Head,Historia Numorum(Oxford, 1887), 363 ff.Cults: S. Wide,Lakonische Kulte(Leipzig, 1893).Ancient roads: W. Loring, “Some Ancient Routes in the Peloponnese” inJournal of Hellenic Studies, xv. 25 ff.

Back to Index Next