LATONA(Lat. form of Gr.Λητώ, Leto), daughter of Coeus and Phoebe, mother of Apollo and Artemis. The chief seats of her legend are Delos and Delphi, and the generally accepted tradition is a union of the legends of these two places. Leto, pregnant by Zeus, seeks for a place of refuge to be delivered. After long wandering she reaches the barren isle of Delos, which, according to Pindar (Frag. 87, 88), was a wandering rock borne about by the waves till it was fixed to the bottom of the sea for the birth of Apollo and Artemis. In the oldest forms of the legend Hera is not mentioned; but afterwards the wanderings of Leto are ascribed to the jealousy of that goddess, enraged at her amour with Zeus. The foundation of Delphi follows immediately on the birth of the god; and on the sacred way between Tempe and Delphi the giant Tityus offers violence to Leto, and is immediately slain by the arrows of Apollo and Artemis (Odyssey, xi. 576-581; Apollodorus i. 4). Such are the main facts of the Leto legend in its common literary form, which is due especially to the two Homeric hymns to Apollo. But Leto is a real goddess, not a mere mythological figure. The honour paid to her in Delphi and Delos might be explained as part of the cult of her son Apollo; but temples to her existed in Argos, in Mantineia and in Xanthus in Lycia; her sacred grove was on the coast of Crete. In Lycia graves are frequently placed under her protection, and she is also known as a goddess of fertility and asκουÏοτÏόφος. It is to be observed that she appears far more conspicuously in the Apolline myths than in those which grew round the great centres of Artemis worship, the reason being that the idea of Apollo and Artemis as twins is one of later growth on Greek soil. Lycia, one of the chief seats of the cult of Apollo, where most frequent traces are found of the worship of Leto as the great goddess, was probably the earlier home of her religion.
In Greek art Leto usually appears carrying her children in her arms, pursued by the dragon sent by the jealous Hera, which is slain by the infant Apollo; in vase paintings especially she is often represented with Apollo and Artemis. The statue of Leto in the Letoön at Argos was the work of Praxiteles.
In Greek art Leto usually appears carrying her children in her arms, pursued by the dragon sent by the jealous Hera, which is slain by the infant Apollo; in vase paintings especially she is often represented with Apollo and Artemis. The statue of Leto in the Letoön at Argos was the work of Praxiteles.
LATOUCHE, HYACINTHE JOSEPH ALEXANDRE THABAUD DE[known asHenri] (1785-1851), French poet and novelist, was born at La Châtre (Indre) on the 2nd of February 1785. Among his works may be distinguished his comedies:Projets de sagesse(1811), and, in collaboration with Émile Deschamps,Selmours de Florian(1818), which ran for a hundred nights; alsoLa Reine d’Espagne(1831), which proved too indecent for the public taste; a novel,Fragoletta: Naples et Paris en 1799(1829), which attained a success of notoriety;La Vallée aux coups(1833), a volume of prose essays and verse; and two volumes of poems,Les Adieux(1843) andLes Agrestes(1844). Latouche’s chief claim to remembrance is that he revealed to the world the genius of André Chénier, then only known to a limited few. The remains of the poet’s work had passed from the hands of Daunou to Latouche, who had sufficient critical insight instantly to recognize their value. In editing the first selection of Chénier’s poems (1819) he made some trifling emendations, but did not, as Béranger afterwards asserted, make radical and unnecessary changes. Latouche was guilty of more than one literary fraud. He caused a licentious story of his own to be attributed to the duchesse de Duras, the irreproachable author ofOurika. He made many enemies by malicious attacks on his contemporaries. TheConstitutionnelwas suppressed in 1817 by the government for an obscure political allusion in an article by Latouche. He then undertook the management of theMercure du XIXesiècle, and began a bitter warfare against the monarchy. After 1830 he edited theFigaro, and spared neither the liberal politicians nor the romanticists who triumphed under the monarchy of July. In his turn he was violently attacked by Gustave Planche in theRevue des deux mondesfor November 1831. But it must be remembered to the credit of Latouche that he did much to encourage George Sand at the beginning of her career. The last twenty years of his life were spent in retirement at Aulnay, where he died on the 9th of March 1851.
Sainte-Beuve, in theCauseries du lundi, vol. 3, gives a not too sympathetic portrait of Latouche. See also George Sand in theSièclefor the 18th, 19th and 20th of July 1851.
Sainte-Beuve, in theCauseries du lundi, vol. 3, gives a not too sympathetic portrait of Latouche. See also George Sand in theSièclefor the 18th, 19th and 20th of July 1851.
LA TOUR, MAURICE QUENTIN DE(1704-1788), French pastellist, was born at St Quentin on the 5th of September 1704. After leaving Picardy for Paris in 1727 he entered the studio of Spoède—an upright man, but a poor master, rector of the academy of St Luke, who still continued, in the teeth of the Royal Academy, the traditions of the old gild of the master painters of Paris. This possibly contributed to the adoption by La Tour of a line of work foreign to that imposed by an academical training; for pastels, though occasionally used, were not a principal and distinct branch of work until 1720, when Rosalba Carriera brought them into fashion with the Parisian world. In 1737 La Tour exhibited the first of that splendid series of a hundred and fifty portraits which formed the glory of the Salon for the succeeding thirty-seven years. In 1746 he was received into the academy; and in 1751, the following year to that in which he received the title of painter to the king, he was promoted by that body to the grade of councillor. His work had the rare merit of satisfying at once both the taste of his fashionable models and the judgment of his brother artists. His art, consummate of its kind, achieved the task of flattering his sitters, whilst hiding that flattery behind the just and striking likeness which, says Pierre Jean Mariette, he hardly ever missed. His portraits of Rousseau, of Voltaire, of Louis XV., of his queen, of the dauphin and dauphiness, are at once documents and masterpieces unsurpassed except by his life-size portrait of Madame de Pompadour, which, exhibited at the Salon of 1755, became the chief ornament of the cabinet of pastels in the Louvre. The museum of St Quentin also possesses a magnificent collection of works which at his death were in his own hands. La Tour retired to St Quentin at the age of 80, and there he died on the 18th of February 1788. The riches amassed during his long life were freely bestowed by him in great part before his death; he founded prizes at the school of fine arts in Paris and for the town of Amiens, and endowed St Quentin with a great number of useful and charitable institutions. He never married, but lived on terms of warm affection with his brother (who survived him, and left to the town the drawings now in the museum); and his relations to Mlle Marie Fel (1713-1789), the celebrated singer, were distinguished by a strength and depth of feeling not common to the loves of the 18th century.
See, in addition to the general works on French art, C. Desmeze,M. Q. de La Tour, peintre du roi(1854); Champfleury,Les Peintres de Laon et de St Quentin(1855); and “La Tour†in theCollection des artistes célèbres(1886); E. and J. de Goncourt,La Tour(1867); Guiffrey and M. Tourneux,Correspondance inédite de M. G. de la Tour(1885); Tourneux,La Tour, biographie critique(1904); andPatoux, L’Œuvre de M. Quentin de la Tour au musée de St Quentin(St Quentin, 1882).
See, in addition to the general works on French art, C. Desmeze,M. Q. de La Tour, peintre du roi(1854); Champfleury,Les Peintres de Laon et de St Quentin(1855); and “La Tour†in theCollection des artistes célèbres(1886); E. and J. de Goncourt,La Tour(1867); Guiffrey and M. Tourneux,Correspondance inédite de M. G. de la Tour(1885); Tourneux,La Tour, biographie critique(1904); andPatoux, L’Œuvre de M. Quentin de la Tour au musée de St Quentin(St Quentin, 1882).
LA TOUR D’AUVERGNE, THÉOPHILE MALO(1743-1800), French soldier, was born at Carhaix in Brittany on the 23rd of December 1743, the son of an advocate named Corret. His desire for a military career being strongly marked, he was enabled, by the not uncommon device of producing a certificate of nobility signed by his friends, first to be nominally enlisted in the Maison du Roi, and soon afterwards to receive a commission in the line, under the name of Corret de Kerbaufret. Four years after joining, in 1771, he assumed by leave of the duke of Bouillon the surname of La Tour d’Auvergne, being in fact descended from an illegitimate half-brother of the great Turenne. Many years of routine service with his regiment were broken only by his participation as a volunteer in the duc de Crillon’s Franco-Spanish expedition to Minorca in 1781. This led to an offer of promotion into the Spanish army, but he refused to change his allegiance. In1784he was promoted captain, and in 1791 he received the cross of St Louis. In the early part of the Revolution his patriotism was still more conspicuously displayed in his resolute opposition to the proposals of many of his brother officers in the Angoumois regiment to emigrate rather than to swear to the constitution. In 1792 his lifelong interest in numismatics and questions of language was shown by a work which he published on the Bretons. At this time he was serving under Montesquiou in the Alps, and although there was only outpost fighting he distinguished himself by his courage and audacity, qualities which were displayed in more serious fighting in the Pyrenees the next year. He declined well-earned promotion to colonel, and, being broken in health and compelled, owing to the loss of his teeth, to live on milk, he left the army in 1795. On his return by sea to Brittany he was captured by the English and held prisoner for two years. When released, he settled at Passy and publishedOrigines gauloises, but in 1797, on the appeal of an old friend whose son had been taken as a conscript, he volunteered as the youth’s substitute, and served on the Rhine (1797) and in Switzerland (1798-1799) as a captain. In recognition of his singular bravery and modesty Carnot obtained a decree from the first consul naming La Tour d’Auvergne “first grenadier of France†(27th of April 1800). This led him to volunteer again, and he was killed in action at Oberhausen, near Donauwörth, on the 27th of June 1800.
La Tour d’Auvergne’s almost legendary courage had captivated the imagination of the French soldier, and his memory was not suffered to die. It was customary for the French troops and their allies of the Rhine Confederation under Napoleon to march at attention when passing his burial-place on the battlefield. His heart was long carried by the grenadier company of his regiment, the 46th; after being in the possession of Garibaldi for many years, it was finally deposited in the keeping of the city of Paris in 1883. But the most striking tribute to his memory is paid to-day as it was by order of the first consul in 1800. “His name is to be kept on the pay list and roll of his company. It will be called at all parades and a non-commissioned officer will reply,Mort au champ d’honneur.†This custom, with little variation, is still observed in the 46th regiment on all occasions when the colour is taken on parade.
LATREILLE, PIERRE ANDRÉ(1762-1833), French naturalist, was born in humble circumstances at Brives-la-Gaillarde (Corrèze), on the 20th of November 1762. In 1778 he entered the collège Lemoine at Paris, and on his admission to priestly orders in 1786 he retired to Brives, where he devoted all the leisure which the discharge of his professional duties allowed to the study of entomology. In 1788 he returned to Paris and found means of making himself known to the leading naturalists there. His “Mémoire sur les mutilles découvertes en France,†contributed to theProceedingsof the Society of Natural History in Paris, procured for him admission to that body. At the Revolution he was compelled to quit Paris, and as a priest of conservative sympathies suffered considerable hardship, being imprisoned for some time at Bordeaux. HisPrécis des caractères génériques des insectes, disposés dans un ordre naturel, appeared at Brives in 1796. In 1798 he became a corresponding member of the Institute, and at the same time was entrusted with the task of arranging the entomological collection at the recently organized Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle (Jardin des Plantes); in 1814 he succeeded G. A. Olivier as member of the Académie des Sciences, and in 1821 he was made a chevalier of the Legion of Honour. For some time he acted as professor of zoology in the veterinary school at Alfort near Paris, and in 1830, when the chair of zoology of invertebrates at the Muséum was divided after the death of Lamarck, Latreille was appointed professor of zoology of crustaceans, arachnids and insects, the chair of molluscs, worms and zoophytes being assigned to H. M. D. de Blainville. “On me donne du pain quand je n’ai plus de dents,†said Latreille, who was then in his sixty-eighth year. He died in Paris on the 6th of February 1833.
In addition to the works already mentioned, the numerous works of Latreille include:Histoire naturelle générale et particulière des crustacés et insectes(14 vols., 1802-1805), forming part of C. N. S. Sonnini’s edition of Buffon;Genera crustaceorum et insectorum, secundum ordinem naturalem in familias disposita(4 vols., 1806-1807);Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des crustacés, des arachnides, et des insectes(1810);Familles naturelles du règne animal, exposées succinctement et dans un ordre analytique(1825);Cours d’entomologie(of which only the first volume appeared, 1831); the whole of the section “Crustacés, Arachnides, Insectes,†in G. Cuvier’sRègne animal; besides many papers in theAnnales du Muséum, theEncyclopédie méthodique, theDictionnaire classique d’histoire naturelleand elsewhere.
In addition to the works already mentioned, the numerous works of Latreille include:Histoire naturelle générale et particulière des crustacés et insectes(14 vols., 1802-1805), forming part of C. N. S. Sonnini’s edition of Buffon;Genera crustaceorum et insectorum, secundum ordinem naturalem in familias disposita(4 vols., 1806-1807);Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des crustacés, des arachnides, et des insectes(1810);Familles naturelles du règne animal, exposées succinctement et dans un ordre analytique(1825);Cours d’entomologie(of which only the first volume appeared, 1831); the whole of the section “Crustacés, Arachnides, Insectes,†in G. Cuvier’sRègne animal; besides many papers in theAnnales du Muséum, theEncyclopédie méthodique, theDictionnaire classique d’histoire naturelleand elsewhere.
LA TRÉMOILLE, an old French family which derives its name from a village (the modern La Trimouille) in the department of Vienne. The family has been known since the middle of the 11th century, and since the 14th century its members have been conspicuous in French history. Guy, sire de la Trémoille, standard-bearer of France, was taken prisoner at the battle of Nicopolis (1396), and Georges, the favourite of King Charles VII., was captured at Agincourt (1415). Louis (2), called thechevalier sans reproche, defeated and captured the duke of Orleans at the battle of Saint Aubin-du-Cormier (1488), distinguished himself in the wars in Italy, and was killed at Pavia (1525). In 1521 François (2) acquired a claim on the kingdom of Naples by his marriage with Anne de Laval, daughter of Charlotte of Aragon. Louis (3) became duke of Thouars in 1563, and his son Claude turned Protestant, was created a peer of France in 1595, and married a daughter of William the Silent in 1598. To this family belonged the lines of the counts of Joigny, the marquises of Royan and counts of Olonne, and the marquises and dukes of Noirmoutier.
LATROBE, CHARLES JOSEPH(1801-1875), Australian governor, was born in London on the 20th of March 1801. The Latrobes were of Huguenot extraction, and belonged to the Moravian community, of which the father and grandfather of C. J. Latrobe were ministers. His father, Christian Ignatius Latrobe (1758-1836), a musician of some note, did good service in the direction of popularizing classical music in England by hisSelection of Sacred Music from the Works of the most Eminent Composers of Germany and Italy(6 vols., 1806-1825). C. J. Latrobe was an excellent mountaineer, and made some important ascents in Switzerland in 1824-1826. In 1832 he went to America with Count Albert Pourtales, and in 1834 crossed the prairies from New Orleans to Mexico with Washington Irving. In 1837 he was invested with a government commission in the West Indies, and two years later was made superintendent of the Port Philip district of New South Wales. When Port Philip was erected into a separate colony as Victoria in 1851, Latrobe became lieutenant-governor. The discovery of gold in that year attracted enormous numbers of immigrants annually. Latrobe discharged the difficult duties of government at this critical period with tact and success. He retired in 1854, became C.B. in 1858 and died in London on the 2nd of December 1875. Beside some volumes of travel he published a volume of poems,The Solace of Song(1837).
SeeBrief Notices of the Latrobe Family(1864), a privately printed translation of an article revised by members of the family in the MoravianBrüderbote(November 1864).
SeeBrief Notices of the Latrobe Family(1864), a privately printed translation of an article revised by members of the family in the MoravianBrüderbote(November 1864).
LATTEN(from O. Fr.laton, mod. Fr.laiton, possibly connected with Span.lata, Ital.latta, a lath), a mixed metal like brass, composed of copper and zinc, generally made in thin sheets, and used especially for monumental brasses and effigies. A fine example is in the screen of Henry VII.’s tomb in Westminster Abbey. There are three forms of latten, “black latten,†unpolished and rolled, “shaven latten,†of extreme thinness, and “roll latten,†of the thickness either of black or shaven latten, but with both sides polished.
LATTICE LEAF PLANT,in botany, the common name forOuvirandra fenestralis, an aquatic monocotyledonous plant belonging to the small natural order Aponogetonaceae and a native of Madagascar. It has a singular appearance from the structure of the leaves, which are oblong in shape, from 6 to 18 in. long and from 2 to 4 in. broad; they spread horizontally beneath the surface of the water, and are reduced to little more than a lattice-like network of veins. The tuberculate roots are edible. The plant is grown in cultivation as a stove-aquatic.
LATUDE, JEAN HENRI,often calledDanryorMasers de Latude(1725-1805), prisoner of the Bastille, was born at Montagnac in Gascony on the 23rd of March 1725. He received a military education and went to Paris in 1748 to study mathematics. He led a dissipated life and endeavoured to curry favour with the marquise de Pompadour by secretly sending her a box of poison and then informing her of the supposed plot against her life. The ruse was discovered, and Mme de Pompadour, not appreciating the humour of the situation, had Latude put in the Bastille on the 1st of May 1749. He was later transferred to Vincennes, whence he escaped in 1750. Retaken and reimprisoned in the Bastille, he made a second brief escape in 1756. He was transferred to Vincennes in 1764, and the next year made a third escape and was a third time recaptured. He was put in a madhouse by Malesherbes in 1775, and discharged in 1777 on condition that he should retire to his native town. He remained in Paris and was again imprisoned. A certain Mme Legros became interested in him through chance reading of one of his memoirs, and, by a vigorous agitation in his behalf, secured his definite release in 1784. He exploited his long captivity with considerable ability, posing as a brave officer, a son of the marquis de la Tude, and a victim of Pompadour’s intrigues. He was extolled and pensioned during the Revolution, and in 1793 the convention compelled the heirs of Mme de Pompadour to pay him 60,000 francs damages. He died in obscurity at Paris on the 1st of January 1805.
The principal work of Latude is the account of his imprisonment, written in collaboration with an advocate named Thiéry, and entitledLe Despotisme dévoilé, ou Mémoires de Henri Masers de la Tude, détenu pendant trente-cinq ans dans les diverses prisons d’état(Amsterdam, 1787, ed. Paris, 1889). An Eng. trans. of a portion was published in 1787. The work is full of lies and misrepresentations, but had great vogue at the time of the French Revolution. Latude also wrote essays on all sorts of subjects.See J. F. Barrière,Mémoires de Linguet et de Latude(1884); G. Bertin,Noticein edition of theMémoires(1889); F. Funck-Brentano, “Latude,†in theRevue des deux mondes(1st October 1889).
The principal work of Latude is the account of his imprisonment, written in collaboration with an advocate named Thiéry, and entitledLe Despotisme dévoilé, ou Mémoires de Henri Masers de la Tude, détenu pendant trente-cinq ans dans les diverses prisons d’état(Amsterdam, 1787, ed. Paris, 1889). An Eng. trans. of a portion was published in 1787. The work is full of lies and misrepresentations, but had great vogue at the time of the French Revolution. Latude also wrote essays on all sorts of subjects.
See J. F. Barrière,Mémoires de Linguet et de Latude(1884); G. Bertin,Noticein edition of theMémoires(1889); F. Funck-Brentano, “Latude,†in theRevue des deux mondes(1st October 1889).
LATUKA,a tribe of negroid stock inhabiting the mountainous country E. of Gondokoro on the upper Nile. They have received a tinge of Hamitic blood from the Galla people, and have highforeheads, large eyes, straight noses and thick but not pouting lips. They are believed by Sir H. H. Johnston to be the original and purest type of the great Masai people, and are assimilated to the Nilotic negro races in customs. Like their neighbours the Bari and Shilluk tribes, they despise clothing, though the important chiefs have adopted Arab attire. Their country is fertile, and they cultivate tobacco, durra and other crops. Their villages are numerous, and some are of considerable size. Tarangole, for instance, on the Khor Kohs, has upwards of three thousand huts, and sheds for many thousands of cattle. The Latuka are industrious and especially noted for skill as smiths. Emin Pasha stated that the lion was so little dreaded by the Latuka that on one being caught in a leopard trap they hastily set it free.
LAUBAN,a town of Germany in the Prussian province of Silesia, is situated in a picturesque valley, at the junction of the lines of railway from Görlitz and Sorau, 16 m. E. of the former. Pop. (1905) 14,624. Lauban has a Roman Catholic and two Evangelical churches, a town hall, dating from 1541, a conventual house of the order of St Magdalene, dating from the 14th century, a municipal library and museum, two hospitals, an orphanage and several schools. Its industrial establishments comprise tobacco, yarn, thread, linen and woollen cloth manufactories, bleaching and dyeing works, breweries and oil and flour mills.
Lauban was founded in the 10th and fortified in the 13th century; in 1427 and 1431 it was devastated by the Hussites, and in 1640 by the Swedes. In 1761 it was the headquarters of Frederick the Great, and in 1813 it was the last Saxon town that made its submission to Prussia.
See Berkel,Geschichte der Stadt Lauban(Lauban, 1896).
See Berkel,Geschichte der Stadt Lauban(Lauban, 1896).
LAUBE, HEINRICH(1806-1884), German dramatist, novelist and theatre-director, was born at Sprottau in Silesia on the 18th of September 1806. He studied theology at Halle and Breslau (1826-1829), and settled in Leipzig in 1832. Here he at once came into prominence with his political essays, collected under the titleDas neue Jahrhundert, in two parts—Polen(1833) andPolitische Briefe(1833)—and with the novelDas junge Europa, in three parts—Die Poeten,Die Krieger,Die Bürger—(1833-1837). These writings, in which, after the fashion of Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Börne, he severely criticized the political régime in Germany, together with the part he played in the literary movement known asDas junge Deutschland, led to his being subjected to police surveillance and his works confiscated. On his return, in 1834, from a journey to Italy, undertaken in the company of Karl Gutzkow, Laube was expelled from Saxony and imprisoned for nine months in Berlin. In 1836 he married the widow of Professor Hänel of Leipzig; almost immediately afterwards he suffered a year’s imprisonment for his revolutionary sympathies. In 1839 he again settled in Leipzig and began a literary activity as a playwright. Chief among his earlier productions are the tragediesMonaldeschi(1845) andStruensee(1847); the comediesRokoko, oder die alten Herren(1846);Gottsched und Gellert(1847); andDie Karlsschüler(1847), of which the youthful Schiller is the hero. In 1848 Laube was elected to the national assembly at Frankfort-on-Main for the district of Elbogen, but resigned in the spring of 1849, when he was appointed artistic director of the Hofburg theatre in Vienna. This office he held until 1867, and in this period fall his finest dramatic productions, notably the tragediesGraf Essex(1856) andMontrose(1859), and his historical romanceDer deutsche Krieg(1865-1866, 9 vols.), which graphically pictures a period in the Thirty Years’ War. In 1869 he became director of the Leipzig Stadttheater, but returned to Vienna in 1870, where in 1872 he was placed at the head of the new Stadttheater; with the exception of a short interval he managed this theatre with brilliant success until his retirement from public life in 1880. He has left a valuable record of his work in Vienna and Leipzig in the three volumesDas Burgtheater(1868),Das norddeutsche Theater(1872) andDas Wiener Stadttheater(1875). His pen was still active after his retirement, and in the five years preceding his death, which took place at Vienna on the 1st of August 1884, he wrote the romances and novelsDie Böhminger(1880),Louison(1881),Der Schatten-Wilhelm(1883), and published an interesting volume of reminiscences,Erinnerungen, 1841-1881(1882). Laube’s dramas are not remarkable for originality or for poetical beauty; their real and great merit lies in their stage-craft. As a theatre-manager he has had no equal in Germany, and his services in this capacity have assured him a more lasting name in German literary history than his writings.
HisGesammelte Schriften(excluding his dramas) were published in 16 vols. (1879-1882); hisDramatische Werke, in 13 vols. (1845-1875); a popular edition of the latter in 12 vols. (1880-1892). An edition of Laube’sAusgewählte Werkein 10 vols. appeared in 1906 with an introduction by H. H. Houben. See also J. Proelss,Das junge Deutschland(1892); and H. Bulthaupt,Dramaturgie des Schauspiels(vol. iii., 6th ed., 1901).
HisGesammelte Schriften(excluding his dramas) were published in 16 vols. (1879-1882); hisDramatische Werke, in 13 vols. (1845-1875); a popular edition of the latter in 12 vols. (1880-1892). An edition of Laube’sAusgewählte Werkein 10 vols. appeared in 1906 with an introduction by H. H. Houben. See also J. Proelss,Das junge Deutschland(1892); and H. Bulthaupt,Dramaturgie des Schauspiels(vol. iii., 6th ed., 1901).
L’AUBESPINE,a French family which sprang from Claude de l’Aubespine, a lawyer of Orleans and bailiff of the abbey of St Euverte in the beginning of the 16th century, and rapidly acquired distinction in offices connected with the law. Sebastien de l’Aubespine (d. 1582), abbot of Bassefontaine, bishop of Vannes and afterwards of Limoges, fulfilled important diplomatic missions in Germany, Hungary, England, the Low Countries and Switzerland under Francis I. and his successors. Claude (c.1500-1567), baron of Châteauneuf-sur-Cher, Sebastien’s brother, was a secretary of finance; he had charge of negotiations with England in 1555 and 1559, and was several times commissioned to treat with the Huguenots in the king’s name. His son Guillaume was a councillor of state and ambassador to England. Charles de l’Aubespine (1580-1653) was ambassador to Germany, the Low Countries, Venice and England, besides twice holding the office of keeper of the seals of France, from 1630 to 1633, and from 1650 to 1651. The family fell into poor circumstances and became extinct in the 19th century.
(M. P.*)
LAUCHSTÄDT,a town of Germany in the province of Prussian Saxony, on the Laucha, 6 m. N.W. of Merseburg by the railway to Schafstädt. Pop. (1905) 2034. It contains an Evangelical church, a theatre, a hydropathic establishment and several educational institutions, among which is an agricultural school affiliated to the university of Halle. Its industries include malting, vinegar-making and brewing. Lauchstädt was a popular watering-place in the 18th century, the dukes of Saxe-Merseburg often making it their summer residence. From 1789 to 1811 the Weimar court theatrical company gave performances here of the plays of Schiller and Goethe, an attraction which greatly contributed to the well-being of the town.
See Maak,Das Goethetheater in Lauchstädt(Lauchstädt, 1905); and Nasemann,Bad Lauchstädt(Halle, 1885).
See Maak,Das Goethetheater in Lauchstädt(Lauchstädt, 1905); and Nasemann,Bad Lauchstädt(Halle, 1885).
LAUD, WILLIAM(1573-1645), English archbishop, only son of William Laud, a clothier, was born at Reading on the 7th of October 1573. He was educated at Reading free school, matriculated at St John’s college, Oxford, in 1589, gained a scholarship in 1590, a fellowship in 1593, and graduated B.A. in 1594, proceeding to D.D. in 1608. In 1601 he took orders, in 1603 becoming chaplain to Charles Blount, earl of Devonshire. Laud early took up a position of antagonism to the Calvinistic party in the church, and in 1604 was reproved by the authorities for maintaining in his thesis for the degree of B.D. “that there could be no true church without bishops,†and again in 1606 for advocating “popish†opinions in a sermon at St Mary’s. If high-church doctrines, however, met with opposition at Oxford, they were relished elsewhere, and Laud obtained rapid advancement. In 1607 he was made vicar of Stanford in Northamptonshire, and in 1608 he became chaplain to Bishop Neile, who in 1610 presented him to the living of Cuxton, when he resigned his fellowship. In 1611, in spite of the influence of Archbishop Abbot and Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, Laud was made president of St John’s, and in 1614 obtained in addition the prebend of Buckden, in 1615 the archdeaconry of Huntingdon, and in 1616 the deanery of Gloucester. Here he repaired the fabric and changed the position of the communion table, a matter which aroused great religious controversy, from the centre of the choir to the east end, by a characteristic tactless exercise of power offending the bishop, who henceforth refused to enter thecathedral. In 1617 he went with the king to Scotland, and aroused hostility by wearing the surplice. In 1621 he became bishop of St David’s, when he resigned the presidentship of St John’s.
In April 1622 Laud, by the king’s orders, took part in a controversy with Percy, a Jesuit, known as Fisher, the aim of which was to prevent the conversion of the countess of Buckingham, the favourite’s mother, to Romanism, and his opinions expressed on that occasion show considerable breadth and comprehension. While refusing to acknowledge the Roman Church asthetrue church, he allowed it to beatrue church and a branch of the Catholic body, at the same time emphasizing the perils of knowingly associating with error; and with regard to the English Church he denied that the acceptance of all its articles was necessary. The foundation of belief was the Bible, not any one branch of the Catholic church arrogating to itself infallibility, and when dispute on matters of faith arose, “a lawful and free council, determining according to Scripture, is the best judge on earth.†A close and somewhat strange intimacy, considering the difference in the characters and ideals of the two men, between Laud and Buckingham now began, and proved the chief instrument of Laud’s advancement. The opportunity came with the old king’s death in 1625, for James, with all his pedantry, was too wise and cautious to embark in Laud’s rash undertakings, and had already shown a prudent moderation, after setting up bishops in Scotland, in going no further in opposition to the religious feelings of the people. On the accession of Charles, Laud’s ambitious activities were allowed free scope. A list of the clergy was immediately prepared by him for the king, in which each name was labelled with an O or a P, distinguishing the Orthodox to be promoted from the Puritans to be suppressed. Laud defended Richard Montague, who had aroused the wrath of the parliament by his pamphlet against Calvinism. His influence soon extended into the domain of the state. He supported the king’s prerogative throughout the conflict with the parliament, preached in favour of it before Charles’s second parliament in 1626, and assisted in Buckingham’s defence. In 1626 he was nominated bishop of Bath and Wells, and in July 1628 bishop of London. On the 12th of April 1629 he was made chancellor of Oxford University.
In the patronage of learning and in the exercise of authority over the morals and education of youth Laud was in his proper sphere, many valuable reforms at Oxford being due to his activity, including the codification of the statutes, the statute by which public examinations were rendered obligatory for university degrees, and the ordinance for the election of proctors, the revival of the college system, of moral and religious discipline and order, and of academic dress. He founded or endowed various professorships, including those of Hebrew and Arabic, and the office of public orator, encouraged English and foreign scholars, such as Voss, Selden and Jeremy Taylor, founded the university printing press, procuring in 1633 the royal patent for Oxford, and obtained for the Bodleian library over 1300 MSS., adding a new wing to the building to contain his gifts. His rule at Oxford was marked by a great increase in the number of students. In his own college he erected the new buildings, and was its second founder. Of his chancellorship he himself wrote a history, and the Laudian tradition long remained the great standard of order and good government in the university. Elsewhere he showed his liberality and his zeal for reform. He was an active visitor of Eton and Winchester, and endowed the grammar school at Reading, where he was himself educated. In London he procured funds for the restoration of the dilapidated cathedral of St Paul’s.
He was far less great as a ruler in the state, showing as a judge a tyrannical spirit both in the star chamber and high-commission court, threatening Felton, the assassin of Buckingham, with the rack, and showing special activity in procuring a cruel sentence in the former court against Alexander Leighton in June 1630 and against Henry Sherfield in 1634. His power was greatly increased after his return from Scotland, whither he had accompanied the king, by his promotion to the archbishopric of Canterbury in August 1633. “As for the state indeed,†he wrote to Wentworth on this occasion, “I am forThorough.†In 1636 the privy council decided in his favour his claim of jurisdiction as visitor over both universities. Soon afterwards he was placed on the commission of the treasury and on the committee of the privy council for foreign affairs. He was all-powerful both in church and state. He proceeded to impose by authority the religious ceremonies and usages to which he attached so much importance. His vicar-general, Sir Nathaniel Brent, went through the dioceses of his province, noting every dilapidation and every irregularity. The pulpit was no longer to be the chief feature in the church, but the communion table. The Puritan lecturers were suppressed. He showed great hostility to the Puritan sabbath and supported the reissue of theBook of Sports, especially odious to that party, and severely reprimanded Chief Justice Richardson for his interference with the Somerset wakes. He insisted on the use of the prayer-book among the English soldiers in the service of Holland, and forced strict conformity on the church of the merchant adventurers at Delft, endeavouring even to reach the colonists in New England. He tried to compel the Dutch and French refugees in England to unite with the Church of England, advising double taxation and other forms of persecution. In 1634 the justices of the peace were ordered to enter houses to search for persons holding conventicles and bring them before the commissioners. He took pleasure in displaying his power over the great, and in punishing them in the spiritual courts for moral offences. In 1637 he took part in the sentence of the star chamber on Prynne, Bastwick and Burton, and in the same year in the prosecution of Bishop Williams. He urged Strafford in Ireland to carry out the same reforms and severities.
He was now to extend his ecclesiastical system to Scotland, where during his visits the appearance of the churches had greatly displeased him. The new prayer-book and canons were drawn up by the Scottish bishops with his assistance and enforced in the country, and, though not officially connected with the work, he was rightly regarded as its real author. The attack not only on the national religion, but on the national independence of Scotland, proved to be the point at which the system, already strained, broke and collapsed. Laud continued to support Strafford’s and the king’s arbitrary measures to the last, and spoke in favour of the vigorous continuation of the war on Strafford’s side in the memorable meeting of the committee of eight on the 5th of May 1640, and for the employment of any means for carrying it on. “Tried all ways,†so ran the notes of his speech, “and refused all ways. By the law of God and man you should have subsistence and lawful to take it.†Though at first opposed to the sitting of convocation, after the dissolution of parliament, as an independent body, on account of the opposition it would arouse, he yet caused to be passed in it the new canons which both enforced his ecclesiastical system and assisted the king’s divine right, resistance to his power entailing “damnation.†Laud’s infatuated policy could go no further, and theetceteraoath, according to which whole classes of men were to be forced to swear perpetual allegiance to the “government of this church by archbishops, bishops, deans and archdeacons, &c.,†was long remembered and derided. His power now quickly abandoned him. He was attacked and reviled as the chief author of the troubles on all sides. In October he was ordered by Charles to suspend theetceteraoath. The same month, when the high commission court was sacked by the mob, he was unable to persuade the star chamber to punish the offenders. On the 18th of December he was impeached by the Long Parliament, and on the 1st of March imprisoned in the tower. On the 12th of May, at Strafford’s request, the archbishop appeared at the window of his cell to give him his blessing on his way to execution, and fainted as he passed by. For some time he was left unnoticed in confinement. On the 31st of May 1643, however, Prynne received orders from the parliament to search his papers, and published a mutilated edition of his diary. The articles of impeachment were sent up to the Lords in October, the trial beginning on the 12th of March 1644, but the attemptto bring his conduct under a charge of high treason proving hopeless, an attainder was substituted and sent up to the Lords on the 22nd of November. In these proceedings there was no semblance of respect for law or justice, the Lords yielding (4th of January 1645) to the menaces of the Commons, who arrogated to themselves the right to declare any crimes they pleased high treason. Laud now tendered the king’s pardon, which had been granted to him in April 1643. This was rejected, and it was with some difficulty that his petition to be executed with the axe, instead of undergoing the ordinary brutal punishment for high treason, was granted. He suffered death on the 10th of January on Tower Hill, asserting his innocence of any offence known to the law, repudiating the charge of “popery,†and declaring that he had always lived in the Protestant Church of England. He was buried in the chancel of All Hallows, Barking, whence his body was removed on the 24th of July 1663 to the chapel of St John’s College, Oxford.
Laud never married. He is described by Fuller as “low of stature, little in bulk, cheerful in countenance (wherein gravity and quickness were all compounded), of a sharp and piercing eye, clear judgment and (abating the influence of age) firm memory.†His personality, on account of the sharp religious antagonisms with which his name is inevitably associated, has rarely been judged with impartiality. His severities were the result of a narrow mind and not of a vindictive spirit, and their number has certainly been exaggerated. His career was distinguished by uprightness, by piety, by a devotion to duty, by courage and consistency. In particular it is clear that the charge of partiality for Rome is unfounded. At the same time the circumstances of the period, the fact that various schemes of union with Rome were abroad, that the missions of Panzani and later of Conn were gathering into the Church of Rome numbers of members of the Church of England who, like Laud himself, were dissatisfied with the Puritan bias which then characterized it, the incident mentioned by Laud himself of his being twice offered the cardinalate, the movement carried on at the court in favour of Romanism, and the fact that Laud’s changes in ritual, however clearly defined and restricted in his own intention, all tended towards Roman practice, fully warranted the suspicions and fears of his contemporaries. Laud’s complete neglect of the national sentiment, in his belief that the exercise of mere power was sufficient to suppress it, is a principal proof of his total lack of true statesmanship. The hostility to “innovations in religion,†it is generally allowed, was a far stronger incentive to the rebellion against the arbitrary power of the crown, than even the violation of constitutional liberties; and to Laud, therefore, more than to Strafford, to Buckingham, or even perhaps to Charles himself, is especially due the responsibility for the catastrophe. He held fast to the great idea of the catholicity of the English Church, to that conception of it which regards it as a branch of the whole Christian church, and emphasizes its historical continuity and identity from the time of the apostles, but here again his policy was at fault; for his despotic administration not only excited and exaggerated the tendencies to separatism and independentism which finally prevailed, but excluded large bodies of faithful churchmen from communion with their church and from their country. The emigration to Massachusetts in 1629, which continued in a stream till 1640, was not composed of separatists but of episcopalians. Thus what Laud grasped with one hand he destroyed with the other.
Passing to the more indirect influence of Laud on his times, we can observe a narrowness of mind and aim which separates him from a man of such high imagination and idealism as Strafford, however closely identified their policies may have been for the moment. The chief feature of Laud’s administration is attention to countless details, to the most trivial of which he attached excessive importance, and which are uninspired by any great underlying principle. His view was always essentially material. The one element in the church which to him was all essential was its visibility. This was the source of his intense dislike of the Puritan and Nonconformist conception of the church, which afforded no tangible or definite form. Hence the necessity for outward conformity, and the importance attached to ritual and ceremony, unity in which must be established at all costs, in contrast to dogma and doctrine, in which he showed himself lenient and large-minded, winning over Hales by friendly discussion, and encouraging the publication of Chillingworth’sReligion of Protestants. He was not a bigot, but a martinet. The external form was with him the essential feature of religion, preceding the spiritual conception, and in Laud’s opinion being the real foundation of it. In his last words on the scaffold he alludes to the dangers and slanders he had endured labouring to keep an uniformity in the external service of God; and Bacon’s conception of a spiritual union founded on variety and liberty was one completely beyond his comprehension.
This narrow materialism was the true cause of his fatal influence both in church and state. In his own character it produced the somewhat blunted moral sense which led to the few incidents in his career which need moral defence, his performance of the marriage ceremony between his first patron Lord Devonshire and the latter’s mistress, the divorced wife of Lord Rich, an act completely at variance with his principles; his strange intimacy with Buckingham; his love of power and place. Indistinguishable from his personal ambition was his passion for the aggrandisement of the church and its predominance in the state. He was greatly delighted at the foolish appointment of Bishop Juxon as lord treasurer in 1636. “No churchman had it,†he cries exultingly, “since Henry VII.’s time, ... and now if the church will not hold up themselves under God, I can do no more.†Spiritual influence, in Laud’s opinion, was not enough for the church. The church as the guide of the nation in duty and godliness, even extending its activity into state affairs as a mediator and a moderator, was not sufficient. Its power must be material and visible, embodied in great places of secular administration and enthroned in high offices of state. Thus the church, descending into the political arena, became identified with the doctrines of one political party in the state—doctrines odious to the majority of the nation—and at the same time became associated with acts of violence and injustice, losing at once its influence and its reputation. Equally disastrous to the state was the identification of the king’s administration with one party in the church, and that with the party in an immense minority not only in the nation but even among the clergy themselves.
Bibliography.—All Laud’s works are to be found in theLibrary of Anglo-Catholic Theology(7 vols.), including his sermons (of no great merit), letters, history of the chancellorship, history of his troubles and trial, and his remarkable diary, the MSS. of the last two works being the property of St John’s College. Various modern opinions of Laud’s career can be studied in T. Longueville’sLife of Laud, by a Romish Recusant(1894);Congregational Union Jubilee Lectures, vol. i. (1882); J. B. Mozley’sEssay on Laud; Archbishop Laud, by A. C. Benson (1887);Wm. Laud, by W. H. Hutton (1895);Archbishop Laud Commemoration, ed. by W. F. Collins (lectures, bibliography, catalogue of exhibits, 1895); Hook’sLives of the Archbishops of Canterbury; and H. Bell,Archbishop Laud and Priestly Government(1907).
Bibliography.—All Laud’s works are to be found in theLibrary of Anglo-Catholic Theology(7 vols.), including his sermons (of no great merit), letters, history of the chancellorship, history of his troubles and trial, and his remarkable diary, the MSS. of the last two works being the property of St John’s College. Various modern opinions of Laud’s career can be studied in T. Longueville’sLife of Laud, by a Romish Recusant(1894);Congregational Union Jubilee Lectures, vol. i. (1882); J. B. Mozley’sEssay on Laud; Archbishop Laud, by A. C. Benson (1887);Wm. Laud, by W. H. Hutton (1895);Archbishop Laud Commemoration, ed. by W. F. Collins (lectures, bibliography, catalogue of exhibits, 1895); Hook’sLives of the Archbishops of Canterbury; and H. Bell,Archbishop Laud and Priestly Government(1907).