Chapter XII: Act 1867: every British ship going to other countries where lemon or (3)

The regulation of rays will here be treated only in systems free from
aberration. E. Abbe first gave a connected theory; and M. von Rohr has
done a great deal towards the elaboration. The Gauss cardinal points
make it simple to construct the image of a given object. No account is
taken of the size of the system, or whether the rays used for the
construction really assist in the reproduction of the image or not.
The diverging cones of rays coming from the object-points can only
take a certain small part in the production of the image in
consequence of the apertures of the lenses, or of diaphragms. It often
happens that the rays used for the construction of the image do not
pass through the system; the image being formed by quite different
rays. If we take a luminous point of the object lying on the axis of
the system then an eye introduced at the image-point sees in the
instrument several concentric rings, which are either the fittings of
the lenses or their images, or the real diaphragms or their images.
The innermost and smallest ring is completely lighted, and forms the
origin of the cone of rays entering the image-space. Abbe called it
the _exit pupil_. Similarly there is a corresponding smallest ring in
the object-space which limits the entering cone of rays. This is
called the _entrance pupil_. The real diaphragm acting as a limit at
any part of the system is called the _aperture-diaphragm_. These
diaphragms remain for all practical purposes the same for all points
lying on the axis. It sometimes happens that one and the same
diaphragm fulfils the functions of the entrance pupil and the
aperture-diaphragm or the exit pupil and the aperture-diaphragm.

Fig. 15 shows the general but simplified case of the different
diaphragms which are of importance for the regulation of the rays. S1,
S2 are two centred systems. A´ is a real diaphragm lying between them.
B1 and B´2 are the fittings of the systems. Then S1 produces the
virtual image A of the diaphragm A´ and the image B2 of the fitting
B´2, whilst the system S2 makes the virtual image A´´ of the diaphragm
A´ and the virtual image B´1 of the fitting B1. The object-point O is
reproduced really through the whole system in the point O´. From the
object-point O three diaphragms can be seen in the object-space, viz.
the fitting B1, the image of the fitting B2 and the image A of the
diaphragm A´ formed by the system S1. The cone of rays nearest to B2
is not received to its total extent by the fitting B1, and the cone
which has entered through B1 is again diminished in its further
course, when passing through the diaphragm A´, so that the cone of
rays really used for producing the image is limited by A, the
diaphragm which seen from O appears to be the smallest. A is therefore
the entrance pupil. The real diaphragm A´ which limits the rays in the
centre of the system is the aperture diaphragm. Similarly three
diaphragms lying in the image-space are to be seen from the
image-point O´--namely B´, A´´, and B´2. A´´ limits the rays in the
image-space, and is therefore the exit pupil. As A is conjugate to the
diaphragm A´ in the system S1, and A´´ to the same diaphragm A´ in the
system S2, the entrance pupil A is conjugate to the exit pupil A´´
throughout the instrument. This relation between entrance and exit
pupils is general.

The apices of the cones of rays producing the image of points near the
axis thus lie in the object-points, and their common base is the
entrance pupil. The axis of such a cone, which connects the object
point with the centre of the entrance pupil, is called the _principal
ray_. Similarly, the principal rays in the image-space join the centre
of the exit pupil with the image-points. The centres of the entrance
and exit pupils are thus the intersections of the principal rays.

For points lying farther from the axis, the entrance pupil no longer
alone limits the rays, the other diaphragms taking part. In fig. 16
only one diaphragm L is present besides the entrance pupil A, and the
object-space is divided to a certain extent into four parts. The
section M contains all points rendered by a system with a complete
aperture; N contains all points rendered by a system with a gradually
diminishing aperture; but this diminution does not attain the
principal ray passing through the centre C. In the section O are those
points rendered by a system with an aperture which gradually decreases
to zero. No rays pass from the points of the section P through the
system and no image can arise from them. The second diaphragm L
therefore limits the three-dimensional object-space containing the
points which can be rendered by the optical system. From C through
this diaphragm L this three-dimensional object-space can be seen as
through a window. L is called by M von Rohr the _entrance luke_. If
several diaphragms can be seen from C, then the entrance _luke_ is the
diaphragm which seen from C appears the smallest. In the sections N
and O the entrance _luke_ also takes part in limiting the cones of
rays. This restriction is known as the "vignetting" action of the
entrance _luke_. The base of the cone of rays for the points of this
section of the object-space is no longer a circle but a two-cornered
curve which arises from the object-point by the projection of the
entrance _luke_ on the entrance pupil. Fig. 17a shows the base of such
a cone of rays. It often happens that besides the entrance _luke_,
another diaphragm acts in a vignetting manner, then the operating
aperture of the cone of rays is a curve made up of circular arcs
formed out of the entrance pupil and the two projections of the two
acting diaphragms (fig. 17b).

If the entrance pupil is narrow, then the section NO, in which the
vignetting is increasing, is diminished, and there is really only one
division of the section M which can be reproduced, and of the section
P which cannot be reproduced. The angle w + w = 2w, comprising the
section which can be reproduced, is called the angle of the field of
view on the object-side. The field of view 2w retains its importance
if the entrance pupil is increased. It then comprises all points
reached by principal rays. The same relations apply to the
image-space, in which there is an exit _luke_, which, seen from the
middle of the exit pupil, appears under the smallest angle. It is the
image of the entrance _luke_ produced by the whole system. The
image-side field of view 2w´ is the angle comprised by the principal
rays reaching the edge of the exit _luke_.

Most optical instruments are used to observe object-reliefs
(three-dimensional objects), and generally an image-relief (a
three-dimensional image) is conjugate to this object-relief. It is
sometimes required, however, to represent by means of an optical
instrument the object-relief on a plane or on a ground-glass as in the
photographic camera. For simplicity we shall assume the intercepting
plane as perpendicular to the axis and shall call it, after von Rohr,
the "ground glass plane." All points of the image not lying in this
plane produce circular spots (corresponding to the form of the pupils)
on it, which are called "circles of confusion." The ground-glass plane
(fig. 18) is conjugate to the object-plane E in the object-space,
perpendicular to the axis, and called the "plane focused for." All
points lying in this plane are reproduced exactly on the ground-glass
plane as the points OO. The circle of confusion Z on the plane focused
for corresponds to the circle of confusion Z´ on the ground-glass
plane. The figure formed on the plane focused for by the cones of rays
from all of the object-points of the total object-space directed to
the entrance pupil, was called "object-side representation" (_imago_)
by M von Rohr. This representation is a central projection. If, for
instance, the entrance pupil is imagined so small that only the
principal rays pass through, then they project directly, and the
intersections of the principal rays represent the projections of the
points of the object lying off the plane focused for. The centre of
the projection or the perspective centre is the middle point of the
entrance pupil C. If the entrance pupil is opened, in place of points,
circles of confusion appear, whose size depends upon the size of the
entrance pupil and the position of the object-points and the plane
focused for. The intersection of the principal ray is the centre of
the circle of confusion. The clearness of the representation on the
plane focused for is of course diminished by the circles of confusion.
This central projection does not at all depend upon the instrument,
but is entirely geometrical, arising when the position and the size of
the entrance pupil, and the position of the plane focused for have
been fixed. The instrument then produces an image on the ground-glass
plane of this perspective representation on the plane focused for, and
on account of the exact likeness which this image has to the
object-side representation it is called the "representation copy." By
moving it round an angle of 180°, this representation can be brought
into a perspective position to the objects, so that all rays coming
from the middle of the entrance pupil and aiming at the object-points,
would always meet the corresponding image-points. This representation
is accessible to the observer in different ways in different
instruments. If the observer desires a perfectly correct perspective
impression of the object-relief the distance of the pivot of the eye
from the representation copy must be equal to the nth part of the
distance of the plane focused for from the entrance pupil, if the
instrument has produced a nth diminution of the object-side
representation. The pivot of the eye must coincide with the centre of
the perspective, because all images are observed in direct vision. It
is known that the pivot of the eye is the point of intersection of all
the directions in which one can look. Thus all these points
represented by circles of confusion which are less than the angular
sharpness of vision appear clear to the eye; the space containing all
these object-points, which appear clear to the eye, is called the
_depth_. The depth of definition, therefore, is not a special property
of the instrument, but depends on the size of the entrance pupil, the
position of the plane focused for and on the conditions under which
the representation can be observed.

If the distance of the representation from the pivot of the eye be
altered from the correct distance already mentioned, the angles of
vision under which various objects appear are changed; perspective
errors arise, causing an incorrect idea to be given of the depth. A
simple case is shown in fig. 19. A cube is the object, and if it is
observed as in fig. 19a with the representation copy at the correct
distance, a correct idea of a cube will be obtained. If, as in figs.
19b and 19c, the distance is too great, there can be two results. If
it is known that the farthest section is just as high as the nearer
one then the cube appears exceptionally deepened, like a long
parallelepipedon. But if it is known to be as deep as it is high then
the eye will see it low at the back and high at the front. The reverse
occurs when the distance of observation is too short, the body then
appears either too flat, or the nearer sections seem too low in
relation to those farther off. These perspective errors can be seen in
any telescope. In the telescope ocular the representation copy has to
be observed under too large an angle or at too short a distance: all
objects therefore appear flattened, or the more distant objects appear
too large in comparison with those nearer at hand.

From the above the importance of experience will be inferred. But it
is not only necessary that the objects themselves be known to the
observer but also that they are presented to his eye in the customary
manner. This depends upon the way in which the principal rays pass
through the system--in other words, upon the special kind of
"transmission" of the principal rays. In ordinary vision the pivot of
the eye is the centre of the perspective representation which arises
on the very distant plane standing perpendicular to the mean direction
of sight. In this kind of central projection all objects lying in
front of the plane focused for are diminished when projected on this
plane, and those lying behind it are magnified. (The distances are
always given in the direction of light.) Thus the objects near to the
eye appear large and those farther from it appear small. This
perspective has been called by M von Rohr[1] "entocentric
transmission" (fig. 20). If the entrance pupil of the instrument lies
at infinity, then all the principal rays are parallel and the
projections of all objects on the plane focused for are exactly as
large as the objects themselves. After E. Abbe, this course of rays is
called "telecentric transmission" (fig. 21). The exit pupil then lies
in the image-side focus of the system. If the perspective centre lies
in front of the plane focused for, then the objects lying in front of
this plane are magnified and those behind it are diminished. This is
just the reverse of perspective representation in ordinary sight, so
that the relations of size and the arrangements for space must be
quite incorrectly indicated (fig. 22); this representation is called
by M von Rohr a "hypercentric transmission." (O. Hr.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] M von Rohr, _Zeitschr. für Sinnesphysiologie_ (1907), xli. 408-429.

LENT (O. Eng. _lencten_, "spring," M. Eng. _lenten_, _lente_, _lent_; cf. Dut. _lente_, Ger. _Lenz_, "spring," O. H. Ger. _lenzin_, _lengizin_, _lenzo_, probably from the same root as "long" and referring to "the lengthening days"), in the Christian Church, the period of fasting preparatory to the festival of Easter. As this fast falls in the early part of the year, it became confused with the season, and gradually the word Lent, which originally meant spring, was confined to this use. The Latin name for the fast, _Quadragesima_ (whence Ital. _quaresima_, Span. _cuaresma_ and Fr. _carême_), and its Gr. equivalent [Greek: tessarakostê] (now superseded by the term [Greek: hê nêsteia] "the fast"), are derived from the Sunday which was the fortieth day before Easter, as _Quinquagesima_ and _Sexagesima_ are the fiftieth and sixtieth, Quadragesima being until the 7th century the _caput jejunii_ or first day of the fast.

The length of this fast and the rigour with which it has been observed have varied greatly at different times and in different countries (see FASTING). In the time of Irenaeus the fast before Easter was very short, but very severe; thus some ate nothing for forty hours between the afternoon of Good Friday and the morning of Easter. This was the only authoritatively prescribed fast known to Tertullian (_De jejunio_, 2, 13, 14; _De oratione_, 18). In Alexandria about the middle of the 3rd century it was already customary to fast during Holy Week; and earlier still the Montanists boasted that they observed a two weeks' fast instead of one. Of the Lenten fast or Quadragesima, the first mention is in the fifth canon of the council of Nicaea (325), and from this time it is frequently referred to, but chiefly as a season of preparation for baptism, of absolution of penitents or of retreat and recollection. In this season fasting played a part, but it was not universally nor rigorously enforced. At Rome, for instance, the whole period of fasting was but three weeks, according to the historian Socrates (_Hist. eccl._ v. 22), these three weeks, in Mgr. Duchesne's opinion, being not continuous but, following the primitive Roman custom, broken by intervals. Gradually, however, the fast as observed in East and West became more rigorously defined. In the East, where after the example of the Church of Antioch the Quadragesima fast had been kept distinct from that of Holy Week, the whole fast came to last for seven weeks, both Saturdays and Sundays (except Holy Saturday) being, however, excluded. In Rome and Alexandria, and even in Jerusalem, Holy Week was included in Lent and the whole fast lasted but six weeks, Saturdays, however, not being exempt. Both at Rome and Constantinople, therefore, the actual fast was but thirty-six days. Some Churches still continued the three weeks' fast, but by the middle of the 5th century most of these divergences had ceased and the usages of Antioch-Constantinople and Rome-Alexandria had become stereotyped in their respective spheres of influence.

The thirty-six days, as forming a tenth part of the year and therefore a perfect number, at first found a wide acceptance (so Cassianus, _Coll._ xxi. 30); but the inconsistency of this period with the name Quadragesima, and with the forty days' fast of Christ, came to be noted, and early in the 7th century four days were added, by what pope is unknown, Lent in the West beginning henceforth on Ash Wednesday (q.v.). About the same time the cycle of paschal solemnities was extended to the ninth week before Easter by the institution of stational masses for Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima Sundays. At Constantinople, too, three Sundays were added and associated with the Easter festival in the same way as the Sundays in Lent proper. These three Sundays were added in the Greek Church also, and the present custom of keeping an eight weeks' fast (i.e. exactly 8×5 days), now universal in the Eastern Church, originated in the 7th century. The Greek Lent begins on the Monday of Sexagesima, with a week of preparatory fasting, known as [Greek: turophagia], or the "butter-week"; the actual fast, however, starts on the Monday of Quinquagesima (Estomihi), this week being known as "the first week of the fast" ([Greek: hebdomas tôn nêsteiôn]). The period of Lent is still described as "the six weeks of the fast" ([Greek: hex hebdomades tôn nêsteiôn]), Holy Week ([Greek: hê hagia kai megalê hebdomas]) not being reckoned in. The Lenten fast was retained at the Reformation in some of the reformed Churches, and is still observed in the Anglican and Lutheran communions. In England a Lenten fast was first ordered to be observed by Earconberht, king of Kent (640-664). In the middle ages, meat, eggs and milk were forbidden in Lent not only by ecclesiastical but by statute law; and this rule was enforced until the reign of william III. The chief Lenten food from the earliest days was fish, and entries in the royal household accounts of Edward III. show the amount of fish supplied to the king. Herring-pies were a great delicacy. Charters granted to seaports often stipulated that the town should send so many herrings or other fish to the king annually during Lent. How severely strict medieval abstinence was may be gauged from the fact that armies and garrisons were sometimes, in default of dispensations, as in the case of the siege of Orleans in 1429, reduced to starvation for want of Lenten food, though in full possession of meat and other supplies. The battle of the Herrings (February 1429) was fought in order to cover the march of a convoy of Lenten food to the English army besieging Orleans. Dispensations from fasting were, however, given in case of illness.

During the religious confusion of the Reformation, the practice of fasting was generally relaxed and it was found necessary to reassert the obligation of keeping Lent and the other periods and days of abstinence by a series of proclamations and statutes. In these, however, the religious was avowedly subordinate to a political motive, viz. to prevent the ruin of the fisheries, which were the great nursery of English seamen. Thus the statute of 2 and 3 Edward VI., cap. 9 (1549), while inculcating that "due and godly abstinence from flesh is a means to virtue," adds that "by the eating of fish much flesh is saved to the country," and that thereby, too, the fishing trade is encouraged. The statute, however, would not seem to have had much effect; for in spite of a proclamation of Queen Elizabeth in 1560 imposing a fine of £20 for each offence on butchers slaughtering animals during Lent, in 1563 Sir William Cecil, in _Notes upon an Act for the Increase of the Navy_, says that "in old times no flesh at all was eaten on fish days; even the king himself could not have license; which was occasion of eating so much fish as now is eaten in flesh upon fish days." The revolt against fish had ruined the fisheries and driven the fishermen to turn pirates, to the great scandal and detriment of the realm. Accordingly, in the session of 1562-1563, Cecil forced upon an unwilling parliament "a politic ordinance on fish eating," by which the eating of flesh on fast days was made punishable by a fine of three pounds or three months' imprisonment, one meat dish being allowed on Wednesdays on condition that three fish dishes were present on the table. The kind of argument by which Cecil overcame the Protestant temper of the parliament is illustrated by a clause which he had meditated adding to the statute, a draft of which in his own handwriting is preserved: "Because no person should misjudge the intent of the statute," it runs, "which is politicly meant only for the increase of fishermen and mariners, and not for any superstition for choice of meats; whoever shall preach or teach that eating of fish or forbearing of flesh is for the saving of the soul of man, or for the service of God, shall be punished as the spreader of false news" (Dom. MSS., Elizabeth, vol. xxvii.). But in spite of statutes and proclamations, of occasional severities and of the patriotic example of Queen Elizabeth, the practice of fasting fell more and more into disuse. Ostentatious avoidance of a fish-diet became, indeed, one of the outward symbols of militant Protestantism among the Puritans. "I have often noted," writes John Taylor, the water-poet, in his _Jack a Lent_ (1620), "that if any superfluous feasting or gormandizing, paunch-cramming assembly do meet, it is so ordered that it must be either in Lent, upon a Friday, or a fasting: for the meat does not relish well except it be sauced with disobedience and comtempt of authority." The government continued to struggle against this spirit of defiance; proclamations of James I. in 1619 and 1625, and of Charles I. in 1627 and 1631, again commanded abstinence from all flesh during Lent, and the High Church movement of the 17th century lent a fresh religious sanction to the official attitude. So late as 1687, James II. issued a proclamation ordering abstention from meat; but, after the Revolution, the Lenten laws fell obsolete, though they remained on the statute-book till repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863. But during the 18th century, though the strict observance of the Lenten fast was generally abandoned, it was still observed and inculcated by the more earnest of the clergy, such as William Law and John Wesley; and the custom of women wearing mourning in Lent, which had been followed by Queen Elizabeth and her court, survived until well into the 19th century. With the growth of the Oxford Movement in the English Church, the practice of observing Lent was revived; and, though no rules for fasting are authoritatively laid down, the duty of abstinence is now very generally inculcated by bishops and clergy, either as a discipline or as an exercise in self-denial. For the more "advanced" Churches, Lenten practice tends to conform to that of the pre-Reformation Church.

Mid-Lent, or the fourth Sunday in Lent, was long known as _Mothering Sunday_, in allusion to the custom for girls in service to be allowed a holiday on that day to visit their parents. They usually took as a present for their mother a small cake known as a _simnel_. In shape it resembled a pork-pie but in materials it was a rich plum-pudding. The word is derived through M. Lat. _simenellus_, _simella_, from Lat. _simila_, wheat flour. In Gloucestershire simnel cakes are still common; and at Usk, Monmouth, the custom of mothering is still scrupulously observed.

LENTHALL, WILLIAM (1591-1662), English parliamentarian, speaker of the House of Commons, second son of William Lenthall, of Lachford, Oxfordshire, a descendent of an old Herefordshire family, was born at Henley-on-Thames in June 1591. He left Oxford without taking a degree in 1609, and was called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn in 1616, becoming a bencher in 1633. He represented Woodstock in the Short Parliament (April 1640), and was chosen by King Charles I. to be speaker of the Long Parliament, which met on the 3rd of November 1640. According to Clarendon, a worse choice could not have been made, for Lenthall was of a "very timorous nature." He was treated with scanty respect in the chair, and seems to have had little control over the proceedings. On the 4th of January 1642, however, when the king entered the House of Commons to seize the five members, Lenthall behaved with great prudence and dignity. Having taken the speaker's chair and looked round in vain to discover the offending members, Charles turned to Lenthall standing below, and demanded of him "whether any of those persons were in the House, whether he saw any of them and where they were." Lenthall fell on his knees and replied: "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here." On the outbreak of the great rebellion, Lenthall threw in his lot with the parliament. He had already called attention to the inadequacy of his salary and been granted a sum of £6000 (9th of April 1642); and he was now appointed master of the rolls (22nd of November 1643), and one of the commissioners of the great seal (Oct. 1646-March 1648).

He carried on his duties as speaker without interruption till 1647, when the power of the parliament had been transferred to the army. On the 26th of July a mob invaded the House of Commons and obliged it to rescind the ordinance re-establishing the old parliamentary committee of militia; Lenthall was held in the chair by main force and compelled to put to the vote a resolution inviting the king to London. Threats of worse things came subsequently to Lenthall's ears, and, taking the mace with him, he left London on the 29th to join the army and Fairfax. Lenthall and Manchester, the speaker of the Lords, headed the fugitive members at the review on Hounslow Heath on the 3rd of August, being received by the soldiers "as so many angels sent from heaven for their good." Returning to London with the army, he was installed again by Fairfax in the chair (6th August), and all votes passed during his absence were annulled. He adhered henceforth to the army party, but with a constant bias in favour of the king.

At the Restoration he claimed to have sent money to the king at Oxford, to have provided the queen with comforts and necessaries and to have taken care of the royal children. But he put the question for the king's trial from the chair, and continued to act as speaker after the king's execution. He still continued to use his influence in favour of the royalists, whenever this was possible without imperilling his own interests, and he saved the lives of both the earl of Norwich (8th March 1649) and Sir W. D'Avenant (3rd July 1650) by his casting vote. The removal of the king had left the parliament supreme; and Lenthall as its representative, though holding little real power, was the first man in the state.

His speakership continued till the 20th of April 1653, when the Long Parliament was summarily expelled. Cromwell directed Colonel Harrison, on the refusal of Lenthall to quit the chair, to pull him out--and Lenthall submitted to the show of force. He took no part in politics till the assembling of the first protectorate parliament, on the 3rd of September 1654, in which he sat as member for Oxfordshire. He was again chosen speaker, his former experience and his pliability of character being his chief recommendations. In the second protectorate parliament, summoned by Cromwell on the 17th of September 1656, Lenthall was again chosen member for Oxfordshire, but had some difficulty in obtaining admission, and was not re-elected speaker. He supported Cromwell's administration, and was active in urging the protector to take the title of king. In spite of his services, Lenthall was not included by Cromwell in his new House of Lords, and was much disappointed and crestfallen at his omission. The protector, hearing of his "grievous complaint," sent him a writ, and Lenthall was elated at believing he had secured a peerage. After Cromwell's death, the officers, having determined to recall the "Rump" Parliament, assembled at Lenthall's house at the Rolls (6th May 1659), to desire him to send out the writs. Lenthall, however, had no wish to resume his duties as speaker, preferring the House of Lords, and made various excuses for not complying. Nevertheless, upon the officers threatening to summon the parliament without his aid, and hearing the next morning that several members had assembled, he led the procession to the parliament house. Lenthall was now restored to the position of dignity which he had filled before. He was temporarily made keeper of the new great seal (14th of May). On the 6th of June it was voted that all commissions should be signed by Lenthall and not by the commander-in-chief. His exalted position, however, was not left long unassailed. On the 13th of October Lambert placed soldiers round the House and prevented the members from assembling. Lenthall's coach was stopped as he was entering Palace Yard, the mace was seized and he was obliged to return. The army, however, soon returned to their allegiance to the parliament. On the 24th of December they marched to Lenthall's house, and expressed their sorrow. On the 29th the speaker received the thanks of the reassembled parliament.

Lenthall now turned his attention to bring about the Restoration. He "very violently" opposed the oath abjuring the house of Stuart, now sought to be imposed by the republican faction on the parliament, and absented himself from the House for ten days, to avoid, it was said, any responsibility for the bill. He had been in communication with Monk for some time, and on Monk entering London with his army (3rd February 1660) Lenthall met him in front of Somerset House. On the 6th of February Monk visited the House of Commons, when Lenthall pronounced a speech of thanks. On the 28th of March Lenthall forwarded to the king a paper containing "Heads of Advice." According to Monk, he "was very active for the restoring of His Majesty and performed many services ... which could not have been soe well effected without his helpe." Lenthall notwithstanding found himself in disgrace at the Restoration. In spite of Monk's recommendation, he was not elected by Oxford University for the Convention Parliament, nor was he allowed by the king, though he had sent him a present of £3000, to remain master of the rolls. On the 11th of June he was included by the House of Commons, in spite of a recommendatory letter from Monk, among the twenty persons excepted from the act of indemnity and subject to penalties not extending to life. In the House of Lords, however, Monk's testimony and intercession were effectual, and Lenthall was only declared incapable of holding for the future any public office. His last public act was a disgraceful one. Unmindful now of the privileges of parliament, he consented to appear as a witness against the regicide Thomas Scot, for words spoken in the House of Commons while Lenthall was in the chair. It was probably after this that he was allowed to present himself at court, and his contemporaries took a malicious glee in telling how "when, with some difficulty, he obtained leave to kiss the king's hand he, out of guilt, fell backward, as he was kneeling."

Lenthall died on the 3rd of September 1662. In his will he desired to be buried without any state and without a monument, "but at the utmost a plain stone with this superscription only, _Vermis sum_, acknowledging myself to be unworthy of the least outward regard in this world and unworthy of any remembrance that hath been so great a sinner." He was held in little honour by his contemporaries, and was universally regarded as a time-server. He was, however, a man of good intentions, strong family affections and considerable ability. Unfortunately he was called by the irony of fate to fill a great office, in which governed constantly by fears for his person and estate, he was seduced into a series of unworthy actions. He left one son, Sir John Lenthall, who had descendants. His brother, Sir John Lenthall, who, it was said, had too much influence with him, was notorious for his extortions as keeper of the King's Bench prison.

See C. H. Firth in the _Dict. Nat. Biog._; Wood (ed. Bliss), _Ath.
Oxon._ iii. 603, who gives a list of his printed speeches and letters;
Foss, _Lives of the Judges_, vi. 447; and J. A. Manning, _Lives of the
Speakers of the House of Commons_. There are numerous references to
Lenthall in his official capacity, and letters written by and to him,
in the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, and in various MSS.
calendared in the Hist. MSS. Commission Series. See also D'Ewes's
_Diary_, in the Harleian Collection, British Museum, some extracts
from which have been given by J. Forster, _Case of the Five Members_,
233 sq.; and _Notes and Queries_, ser. iii., vii. 45 ("Lenthall's
Lamentation"), viii., i. 165, 338, 2, ix., xi. 57.

LENTIL, the seed of _Lens esculenta_ (also known as _Ervum Lens_), a small annual of the vetch tribe. The plant varies from 6 to 18 in. in height, and has many long ascending branches. The leaves are alternate, with six pairs of oblong-linear, obtuse, mucronate leaflets. The flowers, two to four in number, are of a pale blue colour, and are borne in the axils of the leaves, on a slender footstalk nearly equalling the leaves in length; they are produced in June or early in July. The pods are about ½ in. long, broadly oblong, slightly inflated, and contain two seeds, which are of the shape of a doubly convex lens, and about 1/6 in. in diameter. There are several cultivated varieties of the plant, differing in size, hairiness and colour of the leaves, flowers and seeds. The last may be more or less compressed in shape, and in colour may vary from yellow or grey to dark brown; they are also sometimes mottled or speckled. In English commerce two kinds of lentils are principally met with, French and Egyptian. The former are usually sold entire, and are of an ash-grey colour externally and of a yellow tint within; the latter are usually sold like split peas, without the seed coat, and consist of the reddish-yellow cotyledons, which are smaller and rounder than those of the French lentil; the seed coat when present is of a dark brown colour. Considerable quantities of lentils are also imported into the United States.

The native country of the lentil is not known. It was probably one of the first plants brought under cultivation by mankind; lentils have been found in the lake dwellings of St Peter's Island, Lake of Bienne, which are of the Bronze age. The name 'adas (Heb. [Hebrew: adash]) appears to be an original Semitic word, and the red pottage of lentils for which Esau sold his birthright (Gen. xxv. 34) was apparently made from the red Egyptian lentil. This lentil is cultivated in one or other variety in India, Persia, Syria, Egypt, Nubia and North Africa, and in Europe, along the coast of the Mediterranean, and as far north as Germany, Holland and France. In Egypt, Syria and other Eastern countries the parched seeds are exposed for sale in shops, and esteemed the best food to carry on long journeys. Lentils form a chief ingredient in the Spanish puchero, and are used in a similar way in France and other countries. For this purpose they are usually sold in the shelled state.

The reddish variety of the lentil (_lentillon d'hiver_) is the kind
most esteemed in Paris on account of the superior flavour of its
smaller seeds. It is sown in autumn either with a cereal crop or
alone, and is cultivated chiefly in the north and east of France. The
large or common variety, _lentille large blonde_, cultivated in
Lorraine and at Gallardon (Eure-et-Loir), and largely in Germany, is
the most productive, but is less esteemed. This kind has very small
whitish flowers, two or rarely three on a footstalk, and the pods are
generally one-seeded, the seeds being of a whitish or cream colour,
about 3/8 of an inch broad and 1/8 in. thick. A single plant produces
from 100 to 150 pods, which are flattened, about ¾ in. long and ½ in.
broad. Another variety, with seeds similar in form and colour to the
last, but of much smaller size, is known as the _lentillon de Mars_.
It is sown in spring. This variety and the _lentille large_ are both
sometimes called the _lentille à la reine_. A small variety, _lentille
verte du Puy_, cultivated chiefly in the departments of Haute Loire
and Cantal, is also grown as a vegetable and for forage. The Egyptian
lentil was introduced into Britain in 1820. It has blue flowers.
Another species of lentil, _Ervum monanthos_, is grown in France about
Orleans and elsewhere under the name of _jarosse_ and _jarande_. It
is, according to Vilmorin, one of the best kinds of green food to grow
on a poor dry sandy soil; on calcareous soil it does not succeed so
well. It is usually sown in autumn with a little rye or winter oats,
at the rate of a hectolitre to a hectare.

The lentil prefers a light warm sandy soil; on rich land it runs to
leaf and produces but few pods. The seeds are sown in March or April
or early in May, according to the climate of the country, as they
cannot endure night frosts. If for fodder they are sown broadcast, but
in drills if the ripe seeds are required. The pods are gathered in
August or September, as soon as they begin to turn brown--the plants
being pulled up like flax while the foliage is still green, and on a
dry day lest the pods split in drying and loss of seed takes place.
Lentils keep best in the husk so far as flavour is concerned, and will
keep good in this way for two years either for sowing or for food. An
acre of ground yields on an average about 11 cwt. of seed and 30 cwt.
of straw. The amount and character of the mineral matter requisite in
the soil may be judged from the analysis of the ash, which in the
seeds has as its chief ingredients--potash 34.6%, soda 9.5, lime 6.3,
phosphoric acid 36.2, chloride of sodium 7.6, while in the straw the
percentages are--potash 10.8, lime 52.3, silica 17.6, phosphoric acid
12.3, chloride of sodium 2.1.

Lentils have attracted considerable notice among vegetarians as a food
material, especially for soup. A Hindu proverb says, "Rice is good,
but lentils are my life." The husk of the seed is indigestible, and to
cook lentils properly requires at least two and a half hours, but they
are richer in nutritious matter than almost any other kind of pulse,
containing, according to Payen's analysis, 25.2% of nitrogenous matter
(legumin), 56% of starch and 2.6% of fatty matter. Fresenius's
analysis differs in giving only 35% of starch; Einhoff gives 32.81 of
starch and 37.82% of nitrogenous matter. Lentils are more properly the
food of the poor in all countries where they are grown, and have often
been spurned when better food could be obtained, hence the proverb
_Dives factus jam desiit gaudere lente_. The seeds are said to be good
for pigeons, or mixed in a ground state with potatoes or barley for
fattening pigs. The herbage is highly esteemed as green food for
suckling ewes and all kinds of cattle (being said to increase the
yield of milk), also for calves and lambs. Haller says that lentils
are so flatulent as to kill horses. They were also believed to be the
cause of severe scrofulous disorders common in Egypt. This bad
reputation may possibly be due to the substitution of the seeds of the
bitter vetch or tare lentil, _Ervum Ervilia_, a plant which closely
resembles the true lentil in height, habit, flower and pod, but whose
seeds are without doubt possessed of deleterious properties--producing
weakness or even paralysis of the extremities in horses which have
partaken of them. The poisonous principle seems to reside chiefly in
the bitter seed coat, and can apparently be removed by steeping in
water, since Gerard, speaking of the "bitter vetch" (_E. Ervilia_),
says "kine in Asia and in most other countries do eat thereof, being
made sweet by steeping in water." The seed of _E. Ervilia_ is about
the same size and almost exactly of the same reddish-brown colour as
that of the Egyptian lentil, and when the seed coat is removed they
are both of the same orange red hue, but the former is not so bright
as the latter. The shape is the best means of distinguishing the two
seeds, that of E. _Ervilia_ being obtusely triangular.

Sea-lentil is a name sometimes applied to the gulfweed _Sargassum
vulgare_.

LENTULUS, the name of a Roman patrician family of the Cornelian gens, derived from _lentes_ ("lentils"), which its oldest members were fond of cultivating (according to Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ xviii. 3, 10). The word _Lentulitas_ ("Lentulism"; cf. _Appietas_) is coined by Cicero (_Ad Fam._ iii. 7, 5) to express the attributes of a pronounced aristocrat. The three first of the name were L. Cornelius Lentulus (consul 327 B.C.), Servius Cornelius Lentulus (consul 303) and L. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (consul 275). Their connexion with the later Lentuli (especially those of the Ciceronian period) is very obscure and difficult to establish. The following members of the family deserve mention.

PUBLIUS CORNELIUS LENTULUS, nicknamed SURA, one of the chief figures in the Catilinarian conspiracy. When accused by Sulla (to whom he had been quaestor in 81 B.C.) of having squandered the public money, he refused to render any account, but insolently held out the calf of his leg (_sura_), on which part of the person boys were punished when they made mistakes in playing ball. He was praetor in 75, governor of Sicily 74, consul 71. In 70, being expelled from the senate with a number of others for immorality, he joined Catiline. Relying upon a Sibylline oracle that three Cornelii should be rulers of Rome, Lentulus regarded himself as the destined successor of Cornelius Sulla and Cornelius Cinna. When Catiline left Rome after Cicero's first speech _In Catilinam_, Lentulus took his place as chief of the conspirators in the city. In conjunction with C. Cornelius Cethegus, he undertook to murder Cicero and set fire to Rome, but the plot failed owing to his timidity and indiscretion. Ambassadors from the Allobroges being at the time in Rome, the bearers of a complaint against the oppressions of provincial governors, Lentulus made overtures to them, with the object of obtaining armed assistance. Pretending to fall in with his views, the ambassadors obtained a written agreement signed by the chief conspirators, and informed Q. Fabius Sanga, their "patron" in Rome, who in his turn acquainted Cicero. The conspirators were arrested and forced to admit their guilt. Lentulus was compelled to abdicate his praetorship, and, as it was feared that there might be an attempt to rescue him, he was put to death in the Tullianum on the 5th of December 63.

See Dio Cassius xxxvii. 30, xlvi. 20; Plutarch, _Cicero_, 17; Sallust,
_Catilina_; Cicero, _In Catilinam_, iii., iv.; _Pro Sulla_, 25; also
CATILINE.

PUBLIUS CORNELIUS LENTULUS, called SPINTHER from his likeness to an actor of that name, one of the chief adherents of the Pompeian party. In 63 B.C. he was curule aedile, assisted Cicero in the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy, and distinguished himself by the splendour of the games he provided. Praetor in 60, he obtained the governorship of Hispania Citerior (59) through the support of Caesar, to whom he was also indebted for his election to the consulship (57). Lentulus played a prominent part in the recall of Cicero from exile, and although a temporary coolness seems to have arisen between them, Cicero speaks of him in most grateful terms. From 56-53 Lentulus was governor of the province of Cilicia (with Cyprus) and during that time was commissioned by the senate to restore Ptolemy XI. Auletes to his kingdom (see PTOLEMIES). The Sibylline books, however, declared that the king must not be restored by force of arms, at the risk of peril to Rome. As a provincial governor, Lentulus appears to have looked after the interests of his subjects, and did not enrich himself at their expense. In spite of his indebtedness to Caesar, Lentulus joined the Pompeians on the outbreak of civil war (49). The generosity with which he was treated by Caesar after the capitulation of Corfinium made him hesitate, but he finally decided in favour of Pompey. After the battle of Pharsalus, Lentulus escaped to Rhodes, where he was at first refused admission, although he subsequently found an asylum there (Cicero, _Ad Att._ xi. 13. 1). According to Aurelius Victor (_De vir. ill._ lxxviii., 9, if the reading be correct), he subsequently fell into Caesar's hands and was put to death.

See Caesar, _Bell. Civ._ i. 15-23, iii. 102; Plutarch, _Pomp._ 49;
Valerius Maximus ix. 14, 4; many letters of Cicero, especially _Ad
Fam._ i. 1-9.

LUCIUS CORNELIUS LENTULUS, surnamed CRUS or CRUSCELLO (for what reason is unknown), member of the anti-Caesarian party. In 61 B.C. he was the chief accuser of P. Clodius (q.v.) in the affair of the festival of Bona Dea. When consul (49) he advised the rejection of all peace terms offered by Caesar, and declared that, if the senate did not at once decide upon opposing him by force of arms, he would act upon his own responsibility. There seems no reason to doubt that Lentulus was mainly inspired by selfish motives, and hoped to find in civil war an opportunity for his own aggrandizement. But in spite of his brave words he fled in haste from Rome as soon as he heard of Caesar's advance, and crossed over to Greece. After Pharsalus, he made his way to Rhodes (but was refused admission), thence, by way of Cyprus, to Egypt. He landed at Pelusium the day after the murder of Pompey, was immediately seized by Ptolemy, imprisoned, and put to death.

See Caesar, _Bell. Civ._ i. 4, iii. 104; Plutarch, _Pompey_, 80.

A full account of the different Cornelii Lentuli, with genealogical
table, will be found in Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopädie_, iv. pt. 1,
p. 1355 (1900) (s.v. "Cornelius"); see also V. de Vit, _Onomasticon_,
ii. 433.

LENZ, JAKOB MICHAEL REINHOLD (1751-1792), German poet, was born at Sesswegen in Livonia, the son of the village pastor, on the 12th of January 1751. He removed with his parents to Dorpat in 1759, and soon began to compose sacred odes, in the manner of Klopstock. In 1768 he entered the university of Königsberg as a student of theology, and in 1771 accompanied, as tutor, two young German nobles, named von Kleist, to Strassburg, where they were to enter the French army. In Strassburg Lenz was received into the literary circle that gathered round Friedrich Rudolf Salzmann (1749-1821) and became acquainted with Goethe, at that time a student at the university. In order to be close to his young pupils, Lenz had to remove to Fort Louis in the neighbourhood, and while here became deeply enamoured of Goethe's friend, Friederike Elisabeth Brion (1752-1813), daughter of the pastor of Sesenheim. Lenz endeavoured, after Goethe's departure from Strassburg, to replace the great poet in her affections, and to her he poured out songs and poems (_Die Liebe auf dem Lande_) which were long attributed to Goethe himself, as was also Lenz's first drama, the comedy, _Der Hofmeister, oder Vorteile der Privaterziehung_ (1774). In 1776 he visited Weimar and was most kindly received by the duke; but his rude, overbearing manner and vicious habits led to his expulsion. In 1777 he became insane, and in 1779 was removed from Emmendingen, where J. G. Schlosser (1739-1799), Goethe's brother-in-law, had given him a home, to his native village. Here he lived in great poverty for several years, and then was given, more out of charity than on account of his merits, the appointment of tutor in a pension school near Moscow, where he died on the 24th of May 1792. Lenz, though one of the most talented poets of the _Sturm und Drang_ period, presented a strange medley of genius and childishness. His great, though neglected and distorted, abilities found vent in ill-conceived imitations of Shakespeare. His comedies, _Der Hofmeister_; _Der neue Menoza_ (1774); _Die Soldaten_ (1776); _Die Freunde machen den Philosophen_ (1776), though accounted the best of his works, are characterized by unnatural situations and an incongruous mixture of tragedy and comedy.

Lenz's _Gesammelte Schriften_ were published by L. Tieck in three
volumes (1828); supplementary to these volumes are E. Dorer-Egloff,
_J. M. R. Lenz und seine Schriften_ (1857) and K. Weinhold,
_Dramatischer Nachlass von J. M. R. Lenz_ (1884); a selection of
Lenz's writings will be found in A. Sauer, _Stürmer und Dränger_, ii.;
Kürschner's _Deutsche Nationalliteratur_, vol. lxxx., (1883). See
further E. Schmidt, _Lenz und Klinger_ (1878); J. Froitzheim, _Lenz
und Goethe_ (1891); H. Rauch, _Lenz und Shakespeare_ (1892); F.
Waldmann, _Lenz in Briefen_ (1894).

LEO, the name of thirteen popes.