The Lithuanians are well built; the face is mostly elongated, the features fine; the very fair hair, blue eyes and delicate skin distinguish them from Poles and Russians. Their dress is usually plain in comparison with that of Poles, and the predominance in it of greyish colours has been frequently noticed. Their chief occupation is agriculture. The trades in towns are generally carried on by men of other races—mostly by Germans, Jews or Poles. The only exception is afforded to some extent by the Letts. The Samogitians are good hunters, and all Lithuanians are given to apiculture and cattle breeding. But the Lithuanians, as well in the Baltic provinces as in the central ones, were not until the most recent time proprietors of the soil they tilled. They have given a few families to the Russian nobility, but the great mass of the people became serfs of foreign landowners, German and Polish, who reduced them to the greatest misery. Since the Polish insurrection of 1863, the Russian government has given to the Lithuanians the land of the Polish proprietors on much easier terms than in central Russia; but the allotments of soil and the redemption taxes are very unequally distributed; and a not insignificant number of peasants (thechinsheviki) were even deprived of the land they had for centuries considered their own. The Letts remain in the same state as before, and are restrained from emigratingen masseonly by coercive measures.The Letts of Courland, with the exception of about 50,000 who belong to the Greek Church, are Lutherans. Nearly all can read. Those of the government of Vitebsk, who were under Polish dominion, are Roman Catholics, as well as the Lithuanians proper, a part of whom, however, have returned to the Greek Church, in which they were before the union with Poland. The Samogitians are Roman Catholics; they more than other Lithuanians have conserved their national features. But all Lithuanians have maintained much of their heathen practices and creed; the names of pagan divinities, very numerous in the former mythology, are continually mentioned in songs, and also in common speech.Bibliography.—Schiemann,Russland, Polen und Livland bis ins 17te Jahrhundert(2 vols., Berlin, 1886-1887); S. Daukantas,Lietuvos Istorija(Plymouth, Pa., 1893); J. de Brye,Étude historique sur la Lithuanie(Paris, 1894); P. D. Bryantsev,Istorija Litovskago Gosudarstva(Vilna, 1899).
The Lithuanians are well built; the face is mostly elongated, the features fine; the very fair hair, blue eyes and delicate skin distinguish them from Poles and Russians. Their dress is usually plain in comparison with that of Poles, and the predominance in it of greyish colours has been frequently noticed. Their chief occupation is agriculture. The trades in towns are generally carried on by men of other races—mostly by Germans, Jews or Poles. The only exception is afforded to some extent by the Letts. The Samogitians are good hunters, and all Lithuanians are given to apiculture and cattle breeding. But the Lithuanians, as well in the Baltic provinces as in the central ones, were not until the most recent time proprietors of the soil they tilled. They have given a few families to the Russian nobility, but the great mass of the people became serfs of foreign landowners, German and Polish, who reduced them to the greatest misery. Since the Polish insurrection of 1863, the Russian government has given to the Lithuanians the land of the Polish proprietors on much easier terms than in central Russia; but the allotments of soil and the redemption taxes are very unequally distributed; and a not insignificant number of peasants (thechinsheviki) were even deprived of the land they had for centuries considered their own. The Letts remain in the same state as before, and are restrained from emigratingen masseonly by coercive measures.
The Letts of Courland, with the exception of about 50,000 who belong to the Greek Church, are Lutherans. Nearly all can read. Those of the government of Vitebsk, who were under Polish dominion, are Roman Catholics, as well as the Lithuanians proper, a part of whom, however, have returned to the Greek Church, in which they were before the union with Poland. The Samogitians are Roman Catholics; they more than other Lithuanians have conserved their national features. But all Lithuanians have maintained much of their heathen practices and creed; the names of pagan divinities, very numerous in the former mythology, are continually mentioned in songs, and also in common speech.
Bibliography.—Schiemann,Russland, Polen und Livland bis ins 17te Jahrhundert(2 vols., Berlin, 1886-1887); S. Daukantas,Lietuvos Istorija(Plymouth, Pa., 1893); J. de Brye,Étude historique sur la Lithuanie(Paris, 1894); P. D. Bryantsev,Istorija Litovskago Gosudarstva(Vilna, 1899).
(P. A. K.)
Language and Literature.—The Lithuanian, Lettic or Lettish and Borussian or Old Prussian languages together constitute a distinct linguistic subdivision, commonly called the Baltic subdivision, within the Indo-European family. They have many affinities to the Slavonic languages, and are sometimes included with them in a single linguistic group, the Balto-Slavic. In their phonology, however, though not in their structure the Baltic languages appear to be more primitive than the Slavonic. Lithuanian, for example, retains the archaic diphthongs which disappear in Slavonic—Lith.véidas, “face,” Gr.εἶδος, O.S.vidŭ. Among other noteworthy phonological characteristics of Lithuanian are the conversion ofkinto a sibilant, the loss ofhand change of all aspirates into tenues and the retention of primitive consonantal noun-terminations,e.g.the finalsin Sans.Vṛkás, Lith.vīlkas, O.S.vŭlkŭ. Lettic is phonologically less archaic than Lithuanian, although in a few cases it has preserved Indo-European forms which have been changed in Lithuanian,e.g.thesandzwhich have become Lith.sz(sh) andž(zh). The accent in Lithuanian is free; in Lettic, and apparently in Old Prussian, it ultimately became fixed on the first syllable.
In its morphology Lettic represents a later stage of development than Lithuanian, their mutual relationship being analogous to that between Old High German and Gothic. Both languages have preserved seven out of the eight Indo-European cases; Lithuanian has three numbers, but Lettic has lost the dual (except indiwi, “two” andabbi, “both”); the neuter gender, which still appears in Lithuanian pronouns, has also been entirely lost in Lettic; in Lithuanian there are four simple tenses (present, future, imperfect, preterite), but in Lettic the imperfect is wanting. In both languages the number of periphrastic verb-forms and of diminutives is large; in both there are traces of a suffix article; and both have enriched their vocabularies with many words of foreign, especially German, Russian and Polish origin. The numerous Lithuanian dialects are commonly divided into High or Southern, which changestyanddyintocz,dz, and Low or Northern, which retainsty,dy. Lettic is divided into High (the eastern dialects), Low (spoken in N.W. Courland) and Middle (the literary language). Old Prussian ceased to be a spoken language in the 17th century; its literary remains, consisting chiefly of three catechisms and two brief vocabularies, date almost entirely from the period 1517-1561 and are insufficient to permit of any thorough reconstruction of the grammar.
In its morphology Lettic represents a later stage of development than Lithuanian, their mutual relationship being analogous to that between Old High German and Gothic. Both languages have preserved seven out of the eight Indo-European cases; Lithuanian has three numbers, but Lettic has lost the dual (except indiwi, “two” andabbi, “both”); the neuter gender, which still appears in Lithuanian pronouns, has also been entirely lost in Lettic; in Lithuanian there are four simple tenses (present, future, imperfect, preterite), but in Lettic the imperfect is wanting. In both languages the number of periphrastic verb-forms and of diminutives is large; in both there are traces of a suffix article; and both have enriched their vocabularies with many words of foreign, especially German, Russian and Polish origin. The numerous Lithuanian dialects are commonly divided into High or Southern, which changestyanddyintocz,dz, and Low or Northern, which retainsty,dy. Lettic is divided into High (the eastern dialects), Low (spoken in N.W. Courland) and Middle (the literary language). Old Prussian ceased to be a spoken language in the 17th century; its literary remains, consisting chiefly of three catechisms and two brief vocabularies, date almost entirely from the period 1517-1561 and are insufficient to permit of any thorough reconstruction of the grammar.
The literary history of the Lithuanians and Letts dates from the Reformation and comprises three clearly defined periods. (1) Up to 1700 the chief printed books were of a liturgical character. (2) During the 18th century a vigorous educational movement began; dictionaries, grammars and other instructive works were compiled, and written poems began to take the place of songs preserved by oral tradition. (3) The revival of national sentiment at the beginning of the 19th century resulted in the establishment of newspapers and the collection and publication of the national folk-poetry. In both literatures, works of a religious character predominate, and both are rich in popular ballads, folk-tales and fables.
The first book printed in Lithuanian was a translation of Luther’s shorter Catechism (Königsberg, 1547); other translations of devotional or liturgical works followed, and by 1701 59 Lithuanian books had appeared, the most noteworthy being those of the preacher J. Bretkun (1535-1602). The spread of Calvinism led to the publication, in 1701, of a Lithuanian New Testament. The first dictionary was printed in 1749. But perhaps the most remarkable work of the second period wasThe Four Seasons, a pastoral poem in hexameters by Christian Donalitius (1714-1780), which was edited by Nesselmann (Königsberg, 1869) with a German translation and notes. In the 19th century various collections of fables and folk-tales were published, and an epic, theOnikshta Grove, was written by Bishop Baranoski. But it was in journalism that the chief original work of the third period was done. F. Kelch (1801-1877) founded the first Lithuanian newspaper, and between 1834 and 1895 no fewer than 34 Lithuanian periodicals were published in the United States alone.
Luther’s Catechism (Königsberg, 1586) was the first book printed in Lettic, as in the sister speech. In the 17th century various translations of psalms, hymns and other religious works were published, the majority being Calvinistic in tone. The educational movement of the 18th century was inaugurated by G. F. Stender (1714-1796), author of a Lettic dictionary and grammar, of poems, tales and of aBook of Wisdomwhich treats of elementary science and history. Much educational work was subsequently done by the Lettic Literary Society, which publishes a magazine (Magazin, Mitau, from 1827), and by the “Young Letts,” who published various periodicals and translations of foreign classics, and endeavoured to freetheir language and thought from German influences. Somewhat similar tasks were undertaken by the “Young Lithuanians,” whose first magazine theAuszra(“Dawn”) was founded in 1883. From 1890 to 1910 the literature of both peoples was marked by an ever-increasing nationalism; among the names most prominent during this period may be mentioned those of the dramatist Steperman and the poet Martin Lap, both of whom wrote in Lettic.
Bibliography.—Lithuanian dictionaries: Nesselmann,Wörterbuch der litauischen Sprache(Königsberg, 1851); Kurschat,Wörterbuch der litauischen Sprache(Halle, 1870-1883); A. Juszkiewicz,Litovskiy Slovar(St Petersburg, 1897, &c.); P. Saurusaitis,An Abridged Dictionary of the English-Lithuanian Languages, 2 pts. (Waterbury, Conn., 1899-1900); A. Lalis,Dictionary of the Lithuanian and English Languages(Chicago, 1903, &c.). Grammar and Linguistic: Schleicher,Handbuch der litauischen Sprache(Prague, 1856-1857); O. Wiedemann,Handbuch der litauischen Sprache(Strassburg, 1897); A. Bezzenberger,Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache(Göttingen, 1877); J. Schiekopp,Gramatyka litewska poczatkowa(Cracow, 1902). Literature: Nesselmann,Litauische Volkslieder(Berlin, 1853); A. Juszkiewicz,Lietùwiškos Dajnos Uzrasytos, &c. (Kazan, 1881); A. Leskien and C. Brugman,Litauische Volkslieder(Strassburg, 1882); C. Bartsch,Melodieen litauischer Volkslieder(Heidelberg, 1886); A. Juszkiewicz,Melodje ludowe litewskie(Cracow, 1900, &c.); E. A. Voi’ter,Litovskaya Khrestomatiya(St Petersburg, 1901, &c.).Lettic dictionaries and grammars: Bielenstein,Die Lettische Sprache(Berlin, 1863-1864); id.,Lettische Grammatik(Mitau, 1863); Ulmann and Brasche,Lettisches Wörterbuch(Riga, 1872-1880); A. Bezzenberger,Über die Sprache der preussischen Letten and lettische Dialekt-Studien(Göttingen, 1885); Bielenstein,Grenzen des lettischen Volksstammes und der lettischen Sprache(St Petersburg, 1892); Literature: BielensteinTausend lettische Räthsel(Mitau, 1881); T. Treuland,Latyshskiya Narodnyya Skazki(Moscow, 1887, &c.); K. Baron and H. Wissendorff,Latwju dainas(Mitau, 1894, &c.); V. Andreyanov,Lettische Volkslieder und Mythen(Halle, 1896).Old Prussian: Nesselmann,Die Sprache der alten Preussen(Berlin, 1845); id.,Thesaurus linguae prussicae(Berlin, 1873); Berneker,Die preussische Sprache(Strassburg, 1896); M. Schultze,Grammatik der altpreussischen Sprache(Leipzig, 1897).
Bibliography.—Lithuanian dictionaries: Nesselmann,Wörterbuch der litauischen Sprache(Königsberg, 1851); Kurschat,Wörterbuch der litauischen Sprache(Halle, 1870-1883); A. Juszkiewicz,Litovskiy Slovar(St Petersburg, 1897, &c.); P. Saurusaitis,An Abridged Dictionary of the English-Lithuanian Languages, 2 pts. (Waterbury, Conn., 1899-1900); A. Lalis,Dictionary of the Lithuanian and English Languages(Chicago, 1903, &c.). Grammar and Linguistic: Schleicher,Handbuch der litauischen Sprache(Prague, 1856-1857); O. Wiedemann,Handbuch der litauischen Sprache(Strassburg, 1897); A. Bezzenberger,Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache(Göttingen, 1877); J. Schiekopp,Gramatyka litewska poczatkowa(Cracow, 1902). Literature: Nesselmann,Litauische Volkslieder(Berlin, 1853); A. Juszkiewicz,Lietùwiškos Dajnos Uzrasytos, &c. (Kazan, 1881); A. Leskien and C. Brugman,Litauische Volkslieder(Strassburg, 1882); C. Bartsch,Melodieen litauischer Volkslieder(Heidelberg, 1886); A. Juszkiewicz,Melodje ludowe litewskie(Cracow, 1900, &c.); E. A. Voi’ter,Litovskaya Khrestomatiya(St Petersburg, 1901, &c.).
Lettic dictionaries and grammars: Bielenstein,Die Lettische Sprache(Berlin, 1863-1864); id.,Lettische Grammatik(Mitau, 1863); Ulmann and Brasche,Lettisches Wörterbuch(Riga, 1872-1880); A. Bezzenberger,Über die Sprache der preussischen Letten and lettische Dialekt-Studien(Göttingen, 1885); Bielenstein,Grenzen des lettischen Volksstammes und der lettischen Sprache(St Petersburg, 1892); Literature: BielensteinTausend lettische Räthsel(Mitau, 1881); T. Treuland,Latyshskiya Narodnyya Skazki(Moscow, 1887, &c.); K. Baron and H. Wissendorff,Latwju dainas(Mitau, 1894, &c.); V. Andreyanov,Lettische Volkslieder und Mythen(Halle, 1896).
Old Prussian: Nesselmann,Die Sprache der alten Preussen(Berlin, 1845); id.,Thesaurus linguae prussicae(Berlin, 1873); Berneker,Die preussische Sprache(Strassburg, 1896); M. Schultze,Grammatik der altpreussischen Sprache(Leipzig, 1897).
LITMUS(apparently a corruption oflacmus, Dutchlacmoes,lac, lac, andmoes, pulp, due to association with “lit,” an obsolete word for dye, colour; the Ger. equivalent isLackmus, Fr.tournesol), a colouring matter which occurs in commerce in the form of small blue tablets, which, however, consist mostly, not of the pigment proper, but of calcium carbonate and sulphate and other matter devoid of tinctorial value. Litmus is extensively employed by chemists as an indicator for the detection of free acids and free alkalis. An aqueous infusion of litmus, when exactly neutralized by an acid, exhibits a violet colour, which by the least trace of free acid is changed to red, while free alkali turns it to blue. The reagent is generally used in the form of test paper—bibulous paper dyed red, purple or blue by the respective kind of infusion. Litmus is manufactured in Holland from the same kinds of lichens (species ofRoccellaandLecanora) as are used for the preparation of archil (q.v.).
LITOPTERNA,a suborder of South American Tertiary ungulate mammals typified byMacrauchenia, and taking their name (“smooth-heel”) from the presence of a flat facet on the heel-bone, or calcaneum for the articulation of the fibula. The more typical members of the group were digitigrade animals, recalling in general build the llamas and horses; they have small brains, and a facet on the calcaneum for the fibula. The cheek-dentition approximates more or less to the perissodactyle type. Both the terminal faces of the cervical vertebrae are flat, the femur carries a third trochanter, the bones of both the carpus and tarsus are arranged in linear series, and the number of toes, although commonly three, varies between one and five, the third or middle digit being invariably the largest.
Of the two families, the first is theProterotheriidae, which exhibits, in respect of the reduction of the digits, a curious parallelism to the equine line among the Perissodactyla; in this feature, as well as in the reduction of the teeth, it is more specialized than the second family.
The molar teeth approximate to thePalaeotheriumtype, but have a more or less strongly developed median longitudinal cleft. The three-toed type is represented byDiadiaphorus, in which the dental formula is i.½, c.0⁄1, p.4⁄5, m.3⁄8, and the feet are very like those ofHipparion. The cervical vertebrae are of normal form, the orbit (as in the second family) is encircled by bone, the last molar has a third lobe, the single pair of upper incisors are somewhat elongated, and have a gap between and behind them, while the outer lower incisors are larger than the inner pair, the canines being small. The skull has a short muzzle, with elongated nasals. Remains of this and the other representatives of the group are found in the Patagonian Miocene. InProterotherium, which includes smaller forms having the same, or nearly the same, dental formula, the molar teeth differ from those ofDiadiaphorusby the deeper median longitudinal cleft, which completely divides the crown into an inner and an outer moiety, the two cones of the inner half being united. According to the description given by Argentine palaeontologists, this genus is also three-toed, the single-toed representative of the family beingThoatherium, in which the lateral metapodials, or splint-bones, are even more reduced than in theEquidae.
The molar teeth approximate to thePalaeotheriumtype, but have a more or less strongly developed median longitudinal cleft. The three-toed type is represented byDiadiaphorus, in which the dental formula is i.½, c.0⁄1, p.4⁄5, m.3⁄8, and the feet are very like those ofHipparion. The cervical vertebrae are of normal form, the orbit (as in the second family) is encircled by bone, the last molar has a third lobe, the single pair of upper incisors are somewhat elongated, and have a gap between and behind them, while the outer lower incisors are larger than the inner pair, the canines being small. The skull has a short muzzle, with elongated nasals. Remains of this and the other representatives of the group are found in the Patagonian Miocene. InProterotherium, which includes smaller forms having the same, or nearly the same, dental formula, the molar teeth differ from those ofDiadiaphorusby the deeper median longitudinal cleft, which completely divides the crown into an inner and an outer moiety, the two cones of the inner half being united. According to the description given by Argentine palaeontologists, this genus is also three-toed, the single-toed representative of the family beingThoatherium, in which the lateral metapodials, or splint-bones, are even more reduced than in theEquidae.
In the second family—Macraucheniidae—the dentition is complete (forty-four) and without a gap, the crowns of nearly all the teeth being of nearly uniform height, while the upper molars are distinguished from those of theProterotheriidaeby a peculiar arrangement of their two inner cones, and the elevation of the antero-posterior portion of the cingulum so as to form an extra pit on the crown. To describe this arrangement in detail is impossible here, but it may be stated that the two inner cones are closely approximated, and separated by a narrow V-shaped notch on the inner side of the crown. The elongated cervical vertebrae are peculiar in that the arch is perforated by the artery in the same manner as in the llamas.
In the Santa Cruz beds of Patagonia the family is represented by the generalized genusOxyodontotherium(in whichTheosodonmay apparently be included). It comprises animals ranging up to the size of a tapir, in which the nostrils were more or less in the normal anterior position, and the cheek-teeth short-crowned, with the inner cones of the upper molars well developed and separated by a notch, and the pits of moderate depth. The last upper premolar is simpler than the molars, and the canine, which may be double-rooted, is like the earlier premolars. The radius and ulna, like the tibia and fibula, are distinct, and the metapodials rudimentary. On the other hand, inMacrauchenia, which was a much larger llama-like animal, the skull is elongated and narrow, with rudimentary nasals, and the aperture of the nose placed nearly on the line of the eyes and directed upwards, the muzzle not improbably terminating in a short trunk. Deep pits on the forehead probably served for the attachment of special muscles connected with the latter. Very curious is the structure of the cheek-teeth, which are high-crowned, with the two inner cones reduced to mere points, and the pits on the crown-surface large and funnel-shaped. In fact, the perissodactyle type is almost lost. The cervical vertebrae and limb-bones are very long, the radius and ulna being completely, and the tibia and fibula partially, united. The typicalM. patagonicais a Pleistocene form as large as a camel, ranging from Patagonia to Brazil, but remains of smaller species have been found in the Pliocene (?) of Bolivia and Argentina.
The imperfectly knownScalabriniaof the Argentine Pliocene appears to occupy a position intermediate betweenOxyodontotheriumandMacrauchenia, having the nasal aperture situated in the middle of the length of the skull, and the crowns of the cheek-teeth nearly as tall as in the latter, but the lower molars furnished with a projecting process in the hinder valley, similar to one occurring in those of the former.
In this place may be mentioned another strange ungulate from the Santa Cruz beds of Patagonia, namely,Astrapotherium, sometimes regarded as typifying a suborder by itself. This huge ungulate had cheek-teeth singularly like those of a rhinoceros, and an enormous pair of tusk-like upper incisors, recalling the upper canines ofMachaeroduson an enlarged scale. In the lower jaw are two large tusk-like canines between which are three pairs of curiously-formed spatulate incisors, and in both jaws there is a long diastema. The dental formula appears to bei.1⁄3,c.0⁄1,p.2⁄1,m.3⁄3.
NextAstrapotheriummay be provisionally placed the genusHomalodontotherium, of which the teeth have much lower crowns, and are of a less decidedly rhinocerotic type than inAstrapotherium, and the whole dentition forms an even and unbroken series. The bodies of the cervical vertebrae are short, with flattened articularsurfaces, the humerus has an enormous deltoid crest, suggestive of fossorial powers, and the femur is flattened, with a third trochanter. According to the Argentine palaeontologists, the carpus is of the alternating type, and the terminal phalanges of the pentedactyle feet are bifid, and very like those of Edentata. Indeed, this type of foot shows many edentate resemblances. The astragalus is square and flattened, articulating directly with the navicular, although not with the cuboid, and having a slightly convex facet for the tibia. From the structure of the above-mentioned type of foot, which is stated to have been found in association with the skull, it has been suggested thatHomalodontotheriumshould be placed in theAncylopoda(q.v.), but, to say nothing of the different form of the cheek-teeth, all the other South American Santa Cruz ungulates are so distinct from those of other countries that this seems unlikely. It may be suggested that we have rather to deal with an instance of parallelism—a view supported by the parallelism to theEquidaepresented by certain members of theProterotheriidae.
NextAstrapotheriummay be provisionally placed the genusHomalodontotherium, of which the teeth have much lower crowns, and are of a less decidedly rhinocerotic type than inAstrapotherium, and the whole dentition forms an even and unbroken series. The bodies of the cervical vertebrae are short, with flattened articularsurfaces, the humerus has an enormous deltoid crest, suggestive of fossorial powers, and the femur is flattened, with a third trochanter. According to the Argentine palaeontologists, the carpus is of the alternating type, and the terminal phalanges of the pentedactyle feet are bifid, and very like those of Edentata. Indeed, this type of foot shows many edentate resemblances. The astragalus is square and flattened, articulating directly with the navicular, although not with the cuboid, and having a slightly convex facet for the tibia. From the structure of the above-mentioned type of foot, which is stated to have been found in association with the skull, it has been suggested thatHomalodontotheriumshould be placed in theAncylopoda(q.v.), but, to say nothing of the different form of the cheek-teeth, all the other South American Santa Cruz ungulates are so distinct from those of other countries that this seems unlikely. It may be suggested that we have rather to deal with an instance of parallelism—a view supported by the parallelism to theEquidaepresented by certain members of theProterotheriidae.
(R. L.*)
LITOTES(Gr.λιτότης, plainness,λιτός, plain, simple, smooth), a rhetorical figure in which emphasis is secured for a statement by turning it into a denial of the contrary,e.g.“a citizen of no mean city,”i.e.a citizen of a famous city, “A. is not a man to be neglected.” Litotes is sometimes used for what should be more strictly called “meiosis” (Gr.μείωσις, lessening, diminution,μείων, lesser), where the expressions used apparently are weak or understated, but the effect is to intensify.
LITTER(through O. Fr.litereorlitiere, mod.litièrefrom Med. Lat.lectaria, classicallectica,lectus, bed, couch), a word used of a portable couch, shut in by curtains and borne on poles by bearers, and of a bed of straw or other suitable substance for animals; hence applied to the number of young produced by an animal at one birth, and also to any disordered heap of waste material, rubbish, &c. In ancient Greece, prior to the influence of Asiatic luxury after the Macedonian conquest, the litter (φορεῖον) was only used by invalids or by women. The Romans, when thelecticawas introduced, probably about the latter half of the 2nd centuryB.C.(Gellius x. 3), used it only for travelling purposes. Like the Greek or Asiatic litter, it had a roof of skin (pellis) and side curtains (vela,plagae). Juvenal (iv. 20) speaks of transparent sides (latis specularibus). The slaves who bore the litter on their shoulders (succollare) were termedlecticarii, and it was a sign of luxury and wealth to employ six or even eight bearers. Under the Empire the litter began to be used in the streets of Rome, and its use was restricted and granted as a privilege (Suet.Claudius). The travellinglecticamust be distinguished from the much earlierlectica funebrisorferetrum, the funeral bier on which the dead were carried to their burial-place.
LITTLE FALLS,a city and the county-seat of Morrison county, Minnesota, U.S.A., on both banks of the Mississippi river, about 88 m. N.W. of Minneapolis. Pop. (1890) 2354; (1900) 5774, of whom 1559 were foreign-born, chiefly Germans and Swedes; (1905) 5856; (1910) 6078. It is served by the Northern Pacific railway. The city is situated in a prosperous farming region, and has excellent water-power and various manufactures. Little Falls was settled about 1850, was chartered as a city in 1889 and adopted a new charter in 1902. Here was buried the Chippewa chief, Hole-in-the-Day (c.1827-1868), or Bagwunagijik, who succeeded his father, also named Hole-in-the-Day, as head chief of the Chippewas in 1846. Like his father, the younger Hole-in-the-Day led his tribe against the Sioux, and he is said to have prevented the Chippewas from joining the Sioux rising in 1862. His body was subsequently removed by his relatives.
LITTLE FALLS,a city of Herkimer county, New York, U.S.A., on the Mohawk river, 21 m. E.S.E. of Utica. Pop. (1890) 8783; (1900) 10,381, of whom 1915 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 12,273. It is served by the New York Central & Hudson River, the West Shore, the Utica & Mohawk Valley (electric), and the Little Falls & Dolgeville railways (the last named being 13 m. long and running only to Salisbury Center and by the Erie canal). The Mohawk river falls here by a series of rapids 45 ft. in less than a mile, furnishing water power. Among the manufactures are cotton yarn, hosiery and knit goods, leather, &c. In 1905 the city’s factory products were valued at $4,471,080. The city has one of the largest cheese-markets in the United States. The manufacture of flour and grist-mill products was formerly an important industry; a mill burned in 1782 by Tories and Indians had supplied almost the entire Mohawk Valley, and particularly Forts Herkimer and Dayton. Near the city is the grave of General Nicholas Herkimer, to whom a monument was erected in 1896. Little Falls was settled by Germans in 1782, and was almost immediately destroyed by Indians and Tories. It was resettled in 1790, and was incorporated as a village in 1811 and as a city in 1895.
See George A. Hardin,History of Herkimer County(Syracuse, 1893).
See George A. Hardin,History of Herkimer County(Syracuse, 1893).
LITTLEHAMPTON,a seaport and watering-place in the Chichester parliamentary division of Sussex, England, at the mouth of the Arun, 62 m. S. by W. from London by the London, Brighton & South Coast railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 7363. There is a beach of firm sand. The harbour is easily accessible in all weathers, and has a small general trade.
LITTLE ROCK,the capital of Arkansas, U.S.A., and the county-seat of Pulaski county, situated near the centre of the state and on the S. bank of the Arkansas river, at the E. edge of the Ozark foothills. Pop. (1890) 25,874; (1900) 38,307, of whom 14,694 were of negro blood, and 2099 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 45,941. Little Rock is served by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the St Louis South Western, and the St Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern railways and by river boats. It occupies a comparatively level site of 11 sq. m. at an altitude of 250 to 400 ft. above sea-level and 50 ft. or more above the river, which is crossed here by three railway bridges and by a county bridge. The city derived its name (originally “le Petit Roche” and “The Little Rock”) from a rocky peninsula in the Arkansas, distinguished from the “Big Rock” (the site of the army post, Fort Logan H. Roots), 1 m. W. of the city, across the river. The Big Rock is said to have been first discovered and named “Le Rocher Français” in 1722 by Sieur Bernard de la Harpe, who was in search of an emerald mountain; the Little Rock is now used as an abutment for a railway bridge. The state capitol, the state insane asylum, the state deaf mute institute, the state school for the blind, a state reform school, the penitentiary, the state library and the medical and law departments of the state university are at Little Rock; and the city is also the seat of the United States court for the eastern district of Arkansas, of a United States land office, of Little Rock College, of the St Mary’s Academy, of a Roman Catholic orphanage and a Roman Catholic convent, and of two schools for negroes—the Philander Smith College (Methodist Episcopal, 1877), co-educational, and the Arkansas Baptist College. The city is the seat of Protestant Episcopal and Roman Catholic bishops. Little Rock has a Carnegie library (1908), an old ladies’ home, a Florence Crittenton rescue home, a children’s home, St Vincent’s infirmary, a city hospital, a Catholic hospital, a physicians’ and surgeons’ hospital and the Arkansas hospital for nervous diseases. A municipal park system includes City, Forest, Wonderland and West End parks. Immigration from the northern states has been encouraged, and northern men control much of the business of the city. In 1905 the value of factory products was $4,689,787, being 38.8% greater than the value in 1900. Cotton and lumber industries are the leading interests; the value of cotton-seed oil and cake manufactured in 1905 was $967,043, of planing mill products $835,049, and of lumber and timber products $342,134. Printing and publishing and the manufacture of foundry and machine shop products and of furniture are other important industries. Valuable deposits of bauxite are found in Pulaski county, and the mines are the most important in the United States.
Originally the site of the city was occupied by the Quapaw Indians. The earliest permanent settlement by the whites was about 1813-1814; the county was organized in 1818 while still a part of Missouri Territory; Little Rock was surveyed in 1821, was incorporated as a town and became the capital of Arkansas in 1821, and was chartered as a city in 1836. In 1850 its population was only 2167, and in 1860 3727; but in 1870it was 12,380. Little Rock was enthusiastically anti-Union at the outbreak of the Civil War. In February 1861, the United States Arsenal was seized by the state authorities. In September 1863 the Federal generals William Steele (1819-1885) and John W. Davidson (1824-1881), operating against General Sterling Price, captured the city, and it remained throughout the rest of the war under Federal control. Constitutional conventions met at Little Rock in 1836, 1864, 1868 and 1874, and also the Secession Convention of 1861. TheArkansas Gazette, established at Arkansas Post in 1819 and soon afterwards removed to the new capital, was the first newspaper published in Arkansas and one of the first published west of the Mississippi.
LITTLETON(orLyttelton),EDWARD,Baron(1589-1645), son of Sir Edward Littleton (d. 1621) chief-justice of North Wales, was born at Munslow in Shropshire; he was educated at Oxford and became a lawyer, succeeding his father as chief-justice of North Wales. In 1625 he became a member of parliament and acted in 1628 as chairman of the committee of grievances upon whose report the Petition of Right was based. As a member of the party opposed to the arbitrary measures of Charles I. Littleton had shown more moderation than some of his colleagues, and in 1634, three years after he had been chosen recorder of London, the king attached him to his own side by appointing him solicitor-general. In the famous case about ship-money Sir Edward argued against Hampden. In 1640 he was made chief-justice of the common pleas and in 1641 lord keeper of the great seal, being created a peer as Baron Lyttelton. About this time, the lord keeper began to display a certain amount of indifference to the royal cause. In January 1642 he refused to put the great seal to the proclamation for the arrest of the five members and he also incurred the displeasure of Charles by voting for the militia ordinance. However, he assured his friend Edward Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon, that he had only taken this step to allay the suspicions of the parliamentary party who contemplated depriving him of the seal, and he undertook to send this to the king. He fulfilled his promise, and in May 1642 he himself joined Charles at York, but it was some time before he regained the favour of the king and the custody of the seal. Littleton died at Oxford on the 27th of August 1645; he left no sons and his barony became extinct. His only daughter, Anne, married her cousin Sir Thomas Littleton, Bart. (d. 1681), and their son Sir Thomas Littleton (c.1647-1710), was speaker of the House of Commons from 1698 to 1700, and treasurer of the navy from 1700 to 1710. Macaulay thus sums up the character of Speaker Littleton and his relations to the Whigs: “He was one of their ablest, most zealous and most steadfast friends; and had been, both in the House of Commons and at the board of treasury, an invaluable second to Montague” (the earl of Halifax).
LITTLETON, SIR THOMAS DE(c.1407-1481), English judge and legal author, was born, it is supposed, at Frankley Manor House, Worcestershire, about 1407. Littleton’s surname was that of his mother, who was the sole daughter and heiress of Thomas de Littleton, lord of Frankley. She married one Thomas Westcote. Thomas was the eldest of four sons of the marriage, and took the name of Littleton, or, as it seems to have been more commonly spelt, Luttelton. The date of his birth is uncertain; a MS. pedigree gives 1422, but it was probably earlier than this. If, as is generally accepted, he was born at Frankley Manor, it could not have been before 1407, in which year Littleton’s grandfather recovered the manor from a distant branch of the family. He is said by Sir E. Coke to have “attended one of the universities,” but there is no corroboration of this statement. He was probably a member of the Inner Temple, and lectured there on the statute of Westminster II.,De Donis Conditionalibus. His name occurs in the Paston Letters (ed. J. Gairdner, i. 60) about 1445 as that of a well-known counsel and in 1481/2 he received a grant of the manor of Sheriff Hales, Shropshire, from a Sir William Trussel as a reward for his services as counsel. He appears to have been recorder of Coventry in 1450; he was made escheator of Worcestershire, and in 1447/8 was under-sheriff of the same county; he became serjeant-at-law in 1453 and was afterwards a justice of assize on the northern circuit. In 1466 he was made a judge of the common pleas, and in 1475 a knight of the Bath. He died, according to the inscription on his tomb in Worcester cathedral, on the 23rd of August 1481. He married, about 1444, Joan, widow of Sir Philip Chetwind of Ingestrie in Staffordshire, and by her had three sons, through whom he became ancestor of the families holding the peerages of Cobham (formerly Lyttelton,q.v.) and Hatherton.
HisTreatise on Tenureswas probably written after he had been appointed to the bench. It is addressed to his second son Richard, who went to the bar, and whose name occurs in the year books of the reign of Henry VII. The book, both historically and from its intrinsic merit, may be characterized as the first text-book upon the English law of property. The law of property in Littleton’s time was mainly concerned with rights over land, and it was the law relating to this class of rights which Littleton set himself to digest and classify. The time was ripe for the task. Ever since the Conquest regular courts of justice had been at work administering a law which had grown out of an admixture of Teutonic custom and of Norman feudalism. Under Henry II. the courts had been organized, and the practice of keeping regular records of the proceedings had been carefully observed. The centralizing influence of the royal courts and of the justices of assize, working steadily through three centuries, had made the rules governing the law of property uniform throughout the land; local customs were confined within certain prescribed limits, and were only recognized as giving rise to certain well-defined classes of rights, such, for instance, as the security of tenure acquired by villeins by virtue of the custom of the manor, and the rights of freeholders, in some towns, to dispose of their land by will. Thus, by the time of Littleton (Henry VI. and Edward IV.), an immense mass of material had been acquired and preserved in the rolls of the various courts. Reports of important cases were published in the “year books.” A glance at Statham’sAbridgment, the earliest digest of decided cases, published nearly at the same time as Littleton’sTenures, is sufficient to show the enormous bulk which reported cases had already attained as materials for the knowledge of English law.
Littleton’s treatise was written in that peculiar dialect compounded of Norman-French and English phrases called law French. Although it had been provided by a statute of 36 Edward III. thatviva voceproceedings in court should no longer be conducted in the French tongue, “which was much unknown in the realm,” the practice of reporting proceedings in that language, and of using it in legal treatises, lingered till a much later period, and was at length prohibited by a statute passed in the time of the Commonwealth in 1650. Unlike the preceding writers on English law, Glanville, Bracton and the authors of the treatises known by the names of Britton and Fleta, Littleton borrows nothing from the sources of Roman law or the commentators. He deals exclusively with English law.
The book is written on a definite system, and is the first attempt at a scientific classification of rights over land. Littleton’s method is to begin with a definition, usually clearly and briefly expressed, of the class of rights with which he is dealing. He then proceeds to illustrate the various characteristics and incidents of the class by stating particular instances, some of which refer to decisions which had actually occurred, but more commonly they are hypothetical cases put by way of illustration of his principles. He occasionally refers to reported cases. His book is thus much more than a mere digest of judicial decisions; to some extent he pursues the method which gave to Roman law its breadth and consistency of principle. In Roman law this result was attained through the practice of putting to jurisconsults hypothetical cases to be solved by them. Littleton, in like manner, is constantly stating and solving by reference to principles of law cases which may or may not have occurred in actual practice.
In dealing with freehold estates Littleton adopts a classification which has been followed by all writers who have attempted tosystematize the English law of land, especially Sir M. Hale and Sir William Blackstone. It is indeed the only possible approach to a scientific arrangement of the intricate “estates in land” known to English law. He classifies estates in land by reference to their duration, or in other words by reference to the differences between the persons who are entitled to succeed upon the death of the person in possession or “tenant.” First of all, he describes the characteristics of tenancy in fee simple. This is still as it was in Littleton’s time the largest interest in land known to the law. Next in order comes tenancy in fee tail, the various classes of which are sketched by Littleton with brevity and accuracy, but he is silent as to the important practice, which first received judicial recognition shortly before his death, of “suffering a recovery,” whereby through a series of judicial fictions a tenant in tail was enabled to convert his estate tail into a fee simple, thus acquiring full power of alienation. After discussing in their logical order other freehold interests in land, he passes to interests in land called by later writers interests less than freehold, namely, tenancies for terms of years and tenancies at will. With the exception of tenancy from year to year, now so familiar to us, but which was a judicial creation of a date later than the time of Littleton, the first book is a complete statement of the principles of the common law, as they for the most part still exist, governing and regulating interests in lands. The first book concludes with a very interesting chapter on copyhold tenures, which marks the exact point at which the tenant by copy of court roll, the successor of the villein, who in his turn represented the freeman reduced to villenage by the growth of the manorial system, acquired security of tenure.The second book relates to the reciprocal rights and duties of lord and tenant, and is mainly of historical interest to the modern lawyer. It contains a complete statement of the law as it stood in Littleton’s time relating to homage, fealty and escuage, the money compensation to be paid to the lord in lieu of military service to be rendered to the king, a peculiar characteristic of English as distinguished from Continental feudalism.Littleton then proceeds to notice the important features of tenure by knight’s service with its distinguishing incidents of the right of wardship of the lands and person of the infant heir or heiress, and the right of disposing of the ward in marriage. The non-military freehold tenures are next dealt with; we have an account of “socage tenure,” into which all military tenures were subsequently commuted by a now unrecognized act of the Long Parliament in 1650, afterwards re-enacted by the well-known statute of Charles II. (1660), and of “frankalmoign,” or the spiritual tenure by which churchmen held. In the description of burgage tenure and tenure in villenage, the life of which consists in the validity of ancient customs recognized by law, we recognize survivals of a time before the iron rule of feudalism had moulded the law of land in the interests of the king and the great lords. Finally he deals with the law of rents, discussing the various kinds of rents which may be reserved to the grantor upon a grant of lands and the remedies for recovery of rent, especially the remedy by distress.1The third and concluding book of Littleton’s treatise deals mainly with the various ways in which rights over land can be acquired and terminated in the case of a single possessor or several possessors. This leads him to discuss the various modes in which several persons may simultaneously have rights over the same land, as parceners:—daughters who are co-heiresses, or sons in gavelkind; joint tenants and tenants in common. Next follows an elaborate discussion upon what are called estates upon condition—a class of interests which occupied a large space in the early common law, giving rise on one side to estates tail, on another to mortgages. In Littleton’s time a mortgage, which he carefully describes, was merely a conveyance of land by the tenant to the mortgagee, with a condition that, if the tenant paid to the mortgagee a certain sum on a certain day, he might re-enter and have the land again. If the condition was not fulfilled, the interest of the mortgagee became absolute, and Littleton gives no indication of any modification of this strict rule, such as was introduced by courts of equity, permitting the debtor to redeem his land by payment of all that was due to the mortgagee although the day of payment had passed, and his interest had become at law indefeasible. The remainder of the work is occupied with an exposition of a miscellaneous class of modes of acquiring rights of property, the analysis of which would occupy too large a space.The work is thus a complete summary of the common law as it stood at the time. It is nearly silent as to the remarkable class of rights which had already assumed vast practical importance—equitable interests in lands. These are only noticed incidentally in the chapter on “Releases.” But it was already clear in Littleton’s time that this class of rights would become the most important of all. Littleton’s own will, which has been preserved, may be adduced in proof of this assertion. Although nothing was more opposed to the spirit of Norman feudalism than that a tenant of lands should dispose of them by will, we find Littleton directing by his will the feoffees of certain manors to make estates to the persons named in his will. In other words, in order to acquire over lands powers unknown to the common law, the lands had been conveyed to “feoffees” who had full right over them according to the common law, but who were under a conscientious obligation to exercise those rights at the direction and for the exclusive benefit of the person to whose “use” the lands were held. This conscientious obligation was recognized and enforced by the chancellor, and thus arose the class of equitable interests in lands. Littleton is the first writer on English law after these rights had risen into a prominent position, and it is curious to find to what extent they are ignored by him.Bibliography.—The work of Littleton occupies a place in the history of typography as well as of law. The earliest printed edition seems to be that by John Lettou and William de Machlinia, two printers who probably came from the Continent, and carried on their business in partnership, as their note to the edition of Littleton states, “in civitate Londoniarum, juxta ecclesiam omnium sanctorum.” The date of this edition is uncertain, but the most probable conjecture, based on typographical grounds, places it about the latter part of 1481. The next edition is one by Machlinia alone, probably about two or three years later than the former. Machlinia was then in business alone “juxta pontem quae vulgo dicitur Fleta brigge.” Next came the Rohan or Rouen edition, erroneously stated by Sir E. Coke to be the earliest, and to have been printed about 1533. It was, however, of a much earlier date. Tomlins, the latest editor of Littleton, gives reasons for thinking that it cannot have been later than 1490. It is stated in a note to have been printed at Rouen by William le Tailleur “ad instantiam Richardi Pynson.” Copies of all these editions are in the British Museum. In all these editions the work is styledTenores Novelli, probably to distinguish it from the “Old Tenures.”There are three early MSS. of Littleton in the University Library at Cambridge. One of these formerly contained a note on its first page to the effect that it was bought in St Paul’s Churchyard on July 20, 1480. It was therefore in circulation in Littleton’s lifetime. The other two MSS. are of a somewhat later date; but one of them contains what seems to be the earliest English translation of theTenures, and is probably not later than 1500.In the 16th century editions of Littleton followed in rapid succession from the presses of Pynson, Redmayne, Berthelet, Tottyl and others. The practice of annotating the text caused several additions to be introduced, which, however, are easily detected by comparison of the earlier copies. In 1581 West divided the text into 746 sections, which have ever since been preserved. Many of these editions were printed with large margins for purposes of annotation, specimens of which may be seen in Lincoln’s Inn Library.The practice of annotating Littleton was very general, and was adopted by many eminent lawyers besides Sir E. Coke, amongst others by Sir M. Hale. One commentary of this kind, by an unknown hand of earlier date than Sir E. Coke’s, was edited by Cary in 1829. Following the general practice of dealing with Littleton as the great authority on the law of England, “the most perfect and absolute work that ever was written in any human science,” Sir E. Coke made it in 1628 the text of that portion of his work which he calls the first part of the institutes of the law of England, in other words, the law of property.The first printed English translation of Littleton was by Rastell, who seems to have combined the professions of author, printer and serjeant-at-law, between 1514 and 1533. Many English editions by various editors followed, the best of which is Tottyl’s in 1556. Sir E. Coke adopted some translation earlier than this, which has since gone by the name of Sir E. Coke’s translation. He, however, throughout comments not on the translation but on the French text; and the reputation of the commentary has to some extent obscured the intrinsic merit of the original.See E. Wambaugh,Littleton’s Tenures in English(Washington, D.C., 1903).
In dealing with freehold estates Littleton adopts a classification which has been followed by all writers who have attempted tosystematize the English law of land, especially Sir M. Hale and Sir William Blackstone. It is indeed the only possible approach to a scientific arrangement of the intricate “estates in land” known to English law. He classifies estates in land by reference to their duration, or in other words by reference to the differences between the persons who are entitled to succeed upon the death of the person in possession or “tenant.” First of all, he describes the characteristics of tenancy in fee simple. This is still as it was in Littleton’s time the largest interest in land known to the law. Next in order comes tenancy in fee tail, the various classes of which are sketched by Littleton with brevity and accuracy, but he is silent as to the important practice, which first received judicial recognition shortly before his death, of “suffering a recovery,” whereby through a series of judicial fictions a tenant in tail was enabled to convert his estate tail into a fee simple, thus acquiring full power of alienation. After discussing in their logical order other freehold interests in land, he passes to interests in land called by later writers interests less than freehold, namely, tenancies for terms of years and tenancies at will. With the exception of tenancy from year to year, now so familiar to us, but which was a judicial creation of a date later than the time of Littleton, the first book is a complete statement of the principles of the common law, as they for the most part still exist, governing and regulating interests in lands. The first book concludes with a very interesting chapter on copyhold tenures, which marks the exact point at which the tenant by copy of court roll, the successor of the villein, who in his turn represented the freeman reduced to villenage by the growth of the manorial system, acquired security of tenure.
The second book relates to the reciprocal rights and duties of lord and tenant, and is mainly of historical interest to the modern lawyer. It contains a complete statement of the law as it stood in Littleton’s time relating to homage, fealty and escuage, the money compensation to be paid to the lord in lieu of military service to be rendered to the king, a peculiar characteristic of English as distinguished from Continental feudalism.
Littleton then proceeds to notice the important features of tenure by knight’s service with its distinguishing incidents of the right of wardship of the lands and person of the infant heir or heiress, and the right of disposing of the ward in marriage. The non-military freehold tenures are next dealt with; we have an account of “socage tenure,” into which all military tenures were subsequently commuted by a now unrecognized act of the Long Parliament in 1650, afterwards re-enacted by the well-known statute of Charles II. (1660), and of “frankalmoign,” or the spiritual tenure by which churchmen held. In the description of burgage tenure and tenure in villenage, the life of which consists in the validity of ancient customs recognized by law, we recognize survivals of a time before the iron rule of feudalism had moulded the law of land in the interests of the king and the great lords. Finally he deals with the law of rents, discussing the various kinds of rents which may be reserved to the grantor upon a grant of lands and the remedies for recovery of rent, especially the remedy by distress.1
The third and concluding book of Littleton’s treatise deals mainly with the various ways in which rights over land can be acquired and terminated in the case of a single possessor or several possessors. This leads him to discuss the various modes in which several persons may simultaneously have rights over the same land, as parceners:—daughters who are co-heiresses, or sons in gavelkind; joint tenants and tenants in common. Next follows an elaborate discussion upon what are called estates upon condition—a class of interests which occupied a large space in the early common law, giving rise on one side to estates tail, on another to mortgages. In Littleton’s time a mortgage, which he carefully describes, was merely a conveyance of land by the tenant to the mortgagee, with a condition that, if the tenant paid to the mortgagee a certain sum on a certain day, he might re-enter and have the land again. If the condition was not fulfilled, the interest of the mortgagee became absolute, and Littleton gives no indication of any modification of this strict rule, such as was introduced by courts of equity, permitting the debtor to redeem his land by payment of all that was due to the mortgagee although the day of payment had passed, and his interest had become at law indefeasible. The remainder of the work is occupied with an exposition of a miscellaneous class of modes of acquiring rights of property, the analysis of which would occupy too large a space.
The work is thus a complete summary of the common law as it stood at the time. It is nearly silent as to the remarkable class of rights which had already assumed vast practical importance—equitable interests in lands. These are only noticed incidentally in the chapter on “Releases.” But it was already clear in Littleton’s time that this class of rights would become the most important of all. Littleton’s own will, which has been preserved, may be adduced in proof of this assertion. Although nothing was more opposed to the spirit of Norman feudalism than that a tenant of lands should dispose of them by will, we find Littleton directing by his will the feoffees of certain manors to make estates to the persons named in his will. In other words, in order to acquire over lands powers unknown to the common law, the lands had been conveyed to “feoffees” who had full right over them according to the common law, but who were under a conscientious obligation to exercise those rights at the direction and for the exclusive benefit of the person to whose “use” the lands were held. This conscientious obligation was recognized and enforced by the chancellor, and thus arose the class of equitable interests in lands. Littleton is the first writer on English law after these rights had risen into a prominent position, and it is curious to find to what extent they are ignored by him.
Bibliography.—The work of Littleton occupies a place in the history of typography as well as of law. The earliest printed edition seems to be that by John Lettou and William de Machlinia, two printers who probably came from the Continent, and carried on their business in partnership, as their note to the edition of Littleton states, “in civitate Londoniarum, juxta ecclesiam omnium sanctorum.” The date of this edition is uncertain, but the most probable conjecture, based on typographical grounds, places it about the latter part of 1481. The next edition is one by Machlinia alone, probably about two or three years later than the former. Machlinia was then in business alone “juxta pontem quae vulgo dicitur Fleta brigge.” Next came the Rohan or Rouen edition, erroneously stated by Sir E. Coke to be the earliest, and to have been printed about 1533. It was, however, of a much earlier date. Tomlins, the latest editor of Littleton, gives reasons for thinking that it cannot have been later than 1490. It is stated in a note to have been printed at Rouen by William le Tailleur “ad instantiam Richardi Pynson.” Copies of all these editions are in the British Museum. In all these editions the work is styledTenores Novelli, probably to distinguish it from the “Old Tenures.”
There are three early MSS. of Littleton in the University Library at Cambridge. One of these formerly contained a note on its first page to the effect that it was bought in St Paul’s Churchyard on July 20, 1480. It was therefore in circulation in Littleton’s lifetime. The other two MSS. are of a somewhat later date; but one of them contains what seems to be the earliest English translation of theTenures, and is probably not later than 1500.
In the 16th century editions of Littleton followed in rapid succession from the presses of Pynson, Redmayne, Berthelet, Tottyl and others. The practice of annotating the text caused several additions to be introduced, which, however, are easily detected by comparison of the earlier copies. In 1581 West divided the text into 746 sections, which have ever since been preserved. Many of these editions were printed with large margins for purposes of annotation, specimens of which may be seen in Lincoln’s Inn Library.
The practice of annotating Littleton was very general, and was adopted by many eminent lawyers besides Sir E. Coke, amongst others by Sir M. Hale. One commentary of this kind, by an unknown hand of earlier date than Sir E. Coke’s, was edited by Cary in 1829. Following the general practice of dealing with Littleton as the great authority on the law of England, “the most perfect and absolute work that ever was written in any human science,” Sir E. Coke made it in 1628 the text of that portion of his work which he calls the first part of the institutes of the law of England, in other words, the law of property.
The first printed English translation of Littleton was by Rastell, who seems to have combined the professions of author, printer and serjeant-at-law, between 1514 and 1533. Many English editions by various editors followed, the best of which is Tottyl’s in 1556. Sir E. Coke adopted some translation earlier than this, which has since gone by the name of Sir E. Coke’s translation. He, however, throughout comments not on the translation but on the French text; and the reputation of the commentary has to some extent obscured the intrinsic merit of the original.
See E. Wambaugh,Littleton’s Tenures in English(Washington, D.C., 1903).
1These two books are stated, in a note to the table at the conclusion of the work, to have been made for the better understanding of certain chapters of theAntient Book of Tenures. This refers to a tract calledThe Old Tenures, said to have been written in the reign of Edward III. By way of distinguishing it from this work, Littleton’s book is called in all the early editions “Tenores Novelli.”
1These two books are stated, in a note to the table at the conclusion of the work, to have been made for the better understanding of certain chapters of theAntient Book of Tenures. This refers to a tract calledThe Old Tenures, said to have been written in the reign of Edward III. By way of distinguishing it from this work, Littleton’s book is called in all the early editions “Tenores Novelli.”