Chapter V: H. S (5)

When Lotze wrote these explanations, he had already given to the world the first volume of his great work, _Mikrokosmus_ (vol. i. 1856, vol. ii. 1858, vol. iii. 1864; 3rd ed., 1876-1880). In many passages of his works on pathology, physiology, and psychology Lotze had distinctly stated that the method of research which he advocated there did not give an explanation of the phenomena of life and mind, but only the means of observing and connecting them together; that the meaning of all phenomena, and the reason of their peculiar connexions, was a philosophical problem which required to be attacked from a different point of view; and that the significance especially which lay in the phenomena of life and mind would only unfold itself if by an exhaustive survey of the entire life of man, individually, socially, and historically, we gain the necessary data for deciding what meaning attaches to the existence of this microcosm, or small world of human life, in the macrocosm of the universe. This review, which extends, in three volumes, over the wide field of anthropology, beginning with the human frame, the soul, and their union in life, advancing to man, his mind, and the course of the world, and concluding with history, progress, and the connexion of things, ends with the same idea which was expressed in Lotze's earliest work, his _Metaphysik_. The view peculiar to him is reached in the end as the crowning conception towards which all separate channels of thought have tended, and in the light of which the life of man in nature and mind, in the individual and in society, had been surveyed. This view can be briefly stated as follows: Everywhere in the wide realm of observation we find three distinct regions,--the region of facts, the region of laws and the region of standards of value. These three regions are separate only in our thoughts, not in reality. To comprehend the real position we are forced to the conviction that the world of facts is the field in which, and that laws are the means by which, those higher standards of moral and aesthetical value are being realized; and such a union can again only become intelligible through the idea of a personal Deity, who in the creation and preservation of a world has voluntarily chosen certain forms and laws, through the natural operation of which the ends of His work are gained.

Whilst Lotze had thus in his published works closed the circle of his thought, beginning with a conception metaphysically gained, proceeding to an exhaustive contemplation of things in the light it afforded, and ending with the stronger conviction of its truth which observation, experience, and life could afford, he had all the time been lecturing on the various branches of philosophy according to the scheme of academical instruction transmitted from his predecessors. Nor can it be considered anything but a gain that he was thus induced to expound his views with regard to those topics, and in connexion with those problems, which were the traditional forms of philosophical utterance. His lectures ranged over a wide field: he delivered annually lectures on psychology and on logic (the latter including a survey of the entirety of philosophical research under the title _Encyclopädie der Philosophie_), then at longer intervals lectures on metaphysics, philosophy of nature, philosophy of art, philosophy of religion, rarely on history of philosophy and ethics. In these lectures he expounded his peculiar views in a stricter form, and during the last decade of his life he embodied the substance of those courses in his _System der Philosophie_, of which only two volumes have appeared (vol. i. _Logik_, 1st ed., Leipzig, 1874, 2nd ed., 1880; vol. ii. _Metaphysik_, 1879). The third and concluding volume, which was to treat in a more condensed form the principal problems of practical philosophy, of philosophy of art and religion, never appeared. A small pamphlet on psychology, containing the last form in which he had begun to treat the subject in his lectures (abruptly terminated through his death on the 1st of July 1881) during the summer session of 1881, has been published by his son. Appended to this volume is a complete list of Lotze's writings, compiled by Professor Rehnisch of Göttingen.

To understand this series of Lotze's writings, it is necessary to
begin with his definition of philosophy. This is given after his
exposition of logic has established two points, viz. the existence in
our mind of certain laws and forms according to which we connect the
material supplied to us by our senses, and, secondly, the fact that
logical thought cannot be usefully employed without the assumption of
a further set of connexions, not logically necessary, but assumed to
exist between the data of experience and observation. These connexions
of a real not formal character are handed to us by the separate
sciences and by the usage and culture of everyday life. Language has
crystallized them into certain definite notions and expressions,
without which we cannot proceed a single step, but which we have
accepted without knowing their exact meaning, much less their origin.
In consequence the special sciences and the wisdom of common life
entangle themselves easily and frequently in contradictions. A problem
of a purely formal character thus presents itself, viz. this--to try
to bring unity and harmony into the scattered thoughts of our general
culture, to trace them to their primary assumptions and follow them
into their ultimate consequences, to connect them all together, to
remodel, curtail or amplify them, so as to remove their apparent
contradictions, and to combine them in the unity of an harmonious view
of things, and especially to investigate those conceptions which form
the initial assumptions of the several sciences, and to fix the limits
of their applicability. This is the formal definition of philosophy.
Whether an harmonious conception thus gained will represent more than
an agreement among our thoughts, whether it will represent the real
connexion of things and thus possess objective not merely subjective
value, cannot be decided at the outset. It is also unwarranted to
start with the expectation that everything in the world should be
explained by one principle, and it is a needless restriction of our
means to expect unity of method. Nor are we able to start our
philosophical investigations by an inquiry into the nature of human
thought and its capacity to attain an objective knowledge, as in this
case we would be actually using that instrument the usefulness of
which we were trying to determine. The main proof of the objective
value of the view we may gain will rather lie in the degree in which
it succeeds in assigning to every element of culture its due position,
or in which it is able to appreciate and combine different and
apparently opposite tendencies and interests, in the sort of justice
with which it weighs our manifold desires and aspirations, balancing
them in due proportions, refusing to sacrifice to a one-sided
principle any truth or conviction which experience has proven to be
useful and necessary. The investigations will then naturally divide
themselves into three parts, the first of which deals with those to
our mind inevitable forms in which we are obliged to think about
things, if we think at all (metaphysics), the second being devoted to
the great region of facts, trying to apply the results of metaphysics
to these, specially the two great regions of external and mental
phenomena (cosmology and psychology), the third dealing with those
standards of value from which we pronounce our aesthetical or ethical
approval or disapproval. In each department we shall have to aim first
of all at views clear and consistent within themselves, but, secondly,
we shall in the end wish to form some general idea or to risk an
opinion how laws, facts and standards of value may be combined in one
comprehensive view. Considerations of this latter kind will naturally
present themselves in the two great departments of cosmology and
psychology, or they may be delegated to an independent research under
the name of religious philosophy. We have already mentioned the final
conception in which Lotze's speculation culminates, that of a personal
Deity, Himself the essence of all that merits existence for its own
sake, who in the creation and government of a world has voluntarily
chosen certain laws and forms through which His ends are to be
realized. We may add that according to this view nothing is real but
the living spirit of God and the world of living spirits which He has
created; the things of this world have only reality in so far as they
are the appearance of spiritual substance, which underlies everything.
It is natural that Lotze, having this great and final conception
always before him, works under its influence from the very beginning
of his speculations, permitting us, as we progress, to gain every now
and then a glimpse of that interpretation of things which to him
contains the solution of our difficulties.

The key to Lotze's theoretical philosophy lies in his metaphysics, to
the exposition of which important subject the first and last of his
larger publications have been devoted. To understand Lotze's
philosophy, a careful and repeated perusal of these works is
absolutely necessary. The object of his metaphysics is so to remodel
the current notions regarding the existence of things and their
connexions with which the usage of language supplies us as to make
them consistent and thinkable. The further assumption, that the
modified notions thus gained have an objective meaning, and that they
somehow correspond to the real order of the existing world which of
course they can never actually describe, depends upon a general
confidence which we must have in our reasoning powers, and in the
significance of a world in which we ourselves with all the necessary
courses of our thoughts have a due place assigned. The principle
therefore of these investigations is opposed to two attempts
frequently repeated in the history of philosophy, viz.: (1) the
attempt to establish general laws or forms, which the development of
things must have obeyed, or which a Creator must have followed in the
creation of a world (Hegel); and (2) the attempt to trace the genesis
of our notions and decide as to their meaning and value (modern
theories of knowledge). Neither of these attempts is practicable. The
world of many things surrounds us; our notions, by which we manage
correctly or incorrectly to describe it, are also ready made. What
remains to be done is, not to explain how such a world manages to be
what it is, nor how we came to form these notions, but merely this--to
expel from the circle and totality of our conceptions those abstract
notions which are inconsistent and jarring, or to remodel and define
them so that they may constitute a consistent and harmonious view. In
this endeavour Lotze discards as useless and untenable many favourite
conceptions of the school, many crude notions of everyday life. The
course of things and their connexion is only thinkable by the
assumption of a plurality of existences, the reality of which (as
distinguished from our knowledge of them) can be conceived only as a
multitude of relations. This quality of standing in relation to other
things is that which gives to a thing its reality. And the nature of
this reality again can neither be consistently represented as a fixed
and hard substance nor as an unalterable something, but only as a
fixed order of recurrence of continually changing events or
impressions. But, further, every attempt to think clearly what those
relations are, what we really mean, if we talk of a fixed order of
events, forces upon us the necessity of thinking also that the
different things which stand in relations or the different phases
which follow each other cannot be merely externally strung together or
moved about by some indefinable external power, in the form of some
predestination or inexorable fate. The things themselves which exist
and their changing phases must stand in some internal connexion; they
themselves must be active or passive, capable of doing or suffering.
This would lead to the view of Leibnitz, that the world consists of
monads, self-sufficient beings, leading an inner life. But this idea
involves the further conception of Leibnitz, that of a pre-established
harmony, by which the Creator has taken care to arrange the life of
each monad, so that it agrees with that of all others. This
conception, according to Lotze, is neither necessary nor thoroughly
intelligible. Why not interpret at once and render intelligible the
common conception originating in natural science, viz. that of a
system of laws which governs the many things? But, in attempting to
make this conception quite clear and thinkable, we are forced to
represent the connexion of things as a universal substance, the
essence of which we conceive as a system of laws which underlies
everything and in its own self connects everything, but imperceptible,
and known to us merely through the impressions it produces on us,
which we call things. A final reflection then teaches us that the
nature of this universal and all-pervading substance can only be
imagined by us as something analogous to our own mental life, where
alone we experience the unity of a substance (which we call self)
preserved in the multitude of its (mental) states. It also becomes
clear that only where such mental life really appears need we assign
an independent existence, but that the purposes of everyday life as
well as those of science are equally served if we deprive the material
things outside of us of an independence, and assign to them merely a
connected existence through the universal substance by the action of
which alone they can appear to us.

The universal substance, which we may call the absolute, is at this
stage of our investigations not endowed with the attributes of a
personal Deity, and it will remain to be seen by further analysis in
how far we are able--without contradiction--to identify it with the
object of religious veneration, in how far that which to metaphysics
is merely a postulate can be gradually brought nearer to us and become
a living power. Much in this direction is said by Lotze in various
passages of his writings; anything complete, however, on the subject
is wanting. Nor would it seem as if it could be the intention of the
author to do much more than point out the lines on which the further
treatment of the subject should advance. The actual result of his
personal inquiries, the great idea which lies at the foundation of his
philosophy, we know. It may be safely stated that Lotze would allow
much latitude to individual convictions, as indeed it is evident that
the empty notion of an absolute can only become living and significant
to us in the same degree as experience and thought have taught us to
realize the seriousness of life, the significance of creation, the
value of the beautiful and the good, and the supreme worth of personal
holiness. To endow the universal substance with moral attributes, to
maintain that it is more than the metaphysical ground of everything,
to say it is the perfect realization of the holy, the beautiful and
the good, can only have a meaning for him who feels within himself
what real not imaginary values are clothed in those expressions.

We have still to mention that aesthetics formed a principal and
favourite study of Lotze's, and that he has treated this subject also
in the light of the leading ideas of his philosophy. See his essays
_Ueber den Begriff der Schönheit_ (Göttingen, 1845) and _Ueber
Bedingungen der Kunstschönheit_, ibid. (1847); and especially his
_Geschichte der Aesthetik in Deutschland_ (Munich, 1868).

Lotze's historical position is of much interest. Though he disclaims
being a follower of Herbart, his formal definition of philosophy and
his conception of the object of metaphysics are similar to those of
Herbart, who defines philosophy as an attempt to remodel the notions
given by experience. In this endeavour he forms with Herbart an
opposition to the philosophies of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, which
aimed at objective and absolute knowledge, and also to the criticism
of Kant, which aimed at determining the validity of all human
knowledge. But this formal agreement includes material differences,
and the spirit which breathes in Lotze's writings is more akin to the
objects and aspirations of the idealistic school than to the cold
formalism of Herbart. What, however, with the idealists was an object
of thought alone, the absolute, is to Lotze only inadequately
definable in rigorous philosophical language; the aspirations of the
human heart, the contents of our feelings and desires, the aims of art
and the tenets of religious faith must be grasped in order to fill the
empty idea of the absolute with meaning. These manifestations of the
divine spirit again cannot be traced and understood by reducing (as
Hegel did) the growth of the human mind in the individual, in society
and in history to the monotonous rhythm of a speculative schematism;
the essence and worth which is in them reveals itself only to the
student of detail, for reality is larger and wider than philosophy;
the problem, "how the one can be many," is only solved for us in the
numberless examples in life and experience which surround us, for
which we must retain a lifelong interest and which constitute the true
field of all useful human work. This conviction of the emptiness of
terms and abstract notions, and of the fulness of individual life, has
enabled Lotze to combine in his writings the two courses into which
German philosophical thought had been moving since the death of its
great founder, Leibnitz. We may define these courses by the terms
esoteric and exoteric--the former the philosophy of the school,
cultivated principally at the universities, trying to systematize
everything and reduce all our knowledge to an intelligible principle,
losing in this attempt the deeper meaning of Leibnitz's philosophy;
the latter the unsystematized philosophy of general culture which we
find in the work of the great writers of the classical period,
Lessing, Winkelmann, Goethe, Schiller and Herder, all of whom
expressed in some degree their indebtedness to Leibnitz. Lotze can be
said to have brought philosophy out of the lecture-room into the
market-place of life. By understanding and combining what was great
and valuable in those divided and scattered endeavours, he became the
true successor of Leibnitz.

The age in which Lotze lived and wrote in Germany was not one
peculiarly fitted to appreciate the position he took up. Frequently
misunderstood, yet rarely criticized, he was nevertheless greatly
admired, listened to by devoted hearers and read by an increasing
circle. But this circle never attained to the unity of a philosophical
school. The real meaning of Lotze's teaching is reached only by
patient study, and those who in a larger or narrower sense call
themselves his followers will probably feel themselves indebted to him
more for the general direction he has given to their thoughts, for the
tone he has imparted to their inner life, for the seriousness with
which he has taught them to consider even small affairs and practical
duties, and for the indestructible confidence with which his
philosophy permits them to disregard the materialism of science, the
scepticism of shallow culture, the disquieting results of
philosophical and historical criticism.

See E. Pfleiderer, _Lotze's philosophische Weltanschauung nach ihren
Grundzügen_ (Berlin, 1882; 2nd ed., 1884); E. von Hartmann, _Lotze's
Philosophie_ (Leipzig, 1888); O. Caspari, _H. Lotze in seiner Stellung
zu der durch Kant begründeten neuesten Geschichte der Philosophie_
(Breslau, 1883; 2nd ed., 1894); R. Falckenberg, _Hermann Lotze_
(Stuttgart, 1901); Henry Jones, _A Critical Account of the Philosophy
of Lotze_ (Glasgow, 1895); Paul Lange, _Die Lehre vom Instincte bei
Lotze und Darwin_ (Berlin, 1896); A. Lichtenstein, _Lotze und Wundt_
(Bern, 1900). (J. T. M.; H. St.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] See Vogt, _Physiologische Briefe_ (1845-1847); Moleschott, _Der
Kreislauf des Lebens_ (1852); Büchner, _Kraft und Stoff_ (1855).

LOUBET, ÉMILE FRANÇOIS (1838- ), 7th president of the French republic, was born on the 30th of December 1838, the son of a peasant proprietor at Marsanne (Drôme), who was more than once mayor of Marsanne. He was admitted to the Parisian bar in 1862, and took his doctorate-in-law next year. He was still a student when he witnessed the sweeping triumph of the Republican party in Paris at the general election in 1863. He settled down to the exercise of his profession in Montélimar, where he married in 1869 Marie Louis Picard. He also inherited a small estate at Grignan. At the crisis of 1870 he became mayor of Montélimar, and thenceforward was a steady supporter of Gambetta's policy. Elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 1876 by Montélimar he was one of the famous 363 who in June 1877 passed the vote of want of confidence in the ministry of the duc de Broglie. In the general election of October he was re-elected, local enthusiasm for him being increased by the fact that the government had driven him from the mayoralty. In the Chamber he occupied himself especially with education, fighting the clerical system established by the Loi Falloux, and working for the establishment of free, obligatory and secular primary instruction. In 1880 he became president of the departmental council in Drôme. His support of the second Jules Ferry ministry and his zeal for the colonial expansion of France gave him considerable weight in the moderate Republican party. He had entered the Senate in 1885, and he became minister of public works in the Tirard ministry (December 1887 to March 1888). In 1892 President Sadi Carnot, who was his personal friend, asked him to form a cabinet. Loubet held the portfolio of the interior with the premiership, and had to deal with the anarchist crimes of that year and with the great strike of Carmaux, in which he acted as arbitrator, giving a decision regarded in many quarters as too favourable to the strikers. He was defeated in November on the question of the Panama scandals, but he retained the ministry of the interior in the next cabinet under Alexandre Ribot, though he resigned on its reconstruction in January. His reputation as an orator of great force and lucidity of exposition and as a safe and honest statesman procured for him in 1896 the presidency of the Senate, and in February 1899 he was chosen president of the republic in succession to Félix Fauré by 483 votes as against 279 recorded by Jules Méline, his only serious competitor. He was marked out for fierce opposition and bitter insult as the representative of that section of the Republican party which sought the revision of the Dreyfus case. On the day of President Faure's funeral Paul Déroulède met the troops under General Roget on their return to barracks, and demanded that the general should march on the Élysée. Roget sensibly took his troops back to barracks. At the Auteuil steeplechase in June the president was struck on the head with a cane by an anti-Dreyfusard. In that month President Loubet summoned Waldeck-Rousseau to form a cabinet, and at the same time entreated Republicans of all shades of opinion to rally to the defence of the state. By the efforts of Loubet and Waldeck-Rousseau the Dreyfus affair was settled, when Loubet, acting on the advice of General Galliffet, minister of war, remitted the ten years' imprisonment to which Dreyfus was condemned at Rennes. Loubet's presidency saw an acute stage of the clerical question, which was attacked by Waldeck-Rousseau and in still more drastic fashion by the Combes ministry. The French ambassador was recalled from the Vatican in April 1905, and in July the separation of church and state was voted in the Chamber of Deputies. Feeling had run high between France and England over the mutual criticisms passed on the conduct of the South African War and the Dreyfus case respectively. These differences were composed by the Anglo-French _entente_, and in 1904 a convention between the two countries secured the recognition of French claims in Morocco in exchange for non-interference with the English occupation of Egypt. President Loubet was a typical example of the peasant-proprietor class, and had none of the aristocratic, not to say monarchical, proclivities of President Fauré. He inaugurated the Paris Exhibition of 1900, received the tsar Nicholas II. in September 1901 and paid a visit to Russia in 1902. He also exchanged visits with King Edward VII., with the king of Italy and the king of Spain. The king of Spain's visit in 1905 was the occasion of an attempt on his life, a bomb being thrown under his carriage as he was proceeding with his guest to the opera. His presidency came to an end in January 1906, when he retired into private life.

LOUDON, ERNST GIDEON, FREIHERR VON (1717-1790), Austrian soldier, was born at Tootzen in Livonia, on the 2nd of February 1717. His family, of Scottish origin,[1] had been settled in that country since before 1400. His father was a lieutenant-colonel, retired on a meagre pension from the Swedish service, and the boy was sent in 1732 into the Russian army as a cadet. He took part in Field Marshal Münnich's siege of Danzig in 1734, in the march of a Russian corps to the Rhine in 1735 and in the Turkish war 1738-1739. Dissatisfied with his prospects he resigned in 1741 and sought military employment elsewhere. He applied first to Frederick the Great, who declined his services. At Vienna he had better fortune, being made a captain in Trenck's free corps. He took part in its forays and marches, though not in its atrocities, until wounded and taken prisoner in Alsace. He was shortly released by the advance of the main Austrian army. His next active service, still under Trenck, was in the Silesian mountains in 1745, in which campaign he greatly distinguished himself as a leader of light troops. He was present also at Soor. He retired shortly afterwards, owing to his distaste for the lawless habits of his comrades in the irregulars, and after long waiting in poverty for a regular commission he was at last made a captain in one of the frontier regiments, spending the next ten years in half-military, half-administrative work in the Carlstadt district. At Bunich, where he was stationed, he built a church and planted an oak forest now called by his name. He had reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel when the outbreak of the Seven Years' War called him again into the field. From this point began his fame as a soldier. Soon promoted colonel, he distinguished himself repeatedly and was in 1757 made a General-feldwacht-meister (major-general of cavalry) and a knight of the newly founded order of Maria Theresa. In the campaign of 1758 came his first opportunity for fighting an action as a commander-in-chief, and he used it so well that Frederick the Great was obliged to give up the siege of Olmütz and retire into Bohemia (action of Dom-stadtl, 30th of June). He was rewarded with the grade of lieutenant-field-marshal and having again shown himself an active and daring commander in the campaign of Hochkirch, he was created a Freiherr in the Austrian nobility by Maria Theresa and in the peerage of the Holy Roman Empire by her husband the emperor Francis. Maria Theresa gave him, further, the grand cross of the order she had founded and an estate near Kuttenberg in Bohemia. He was placed in command of the Austrian contingent sent to join the Russians on the Oder. At Kunersdorf he turned defeat into a brilliant victory, and was promoted Feldzeugmeister and made commander-in-chief in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. In 1760 he destroyed a whole corps of Frederick's army under Fouqué at Landshut and stormed the important fortress of Glatz. In 1760 he sustained a reverse at Frederick's hands in the battle of Liegnitz (Aug. 15th, 1760), which action led to bitter controversy with Daun and Lacy, the commanders of the main army, who, Loudon claimed, had left his corps unsupported. In 1761 he operated, as usual, in Silesia, but he found his Russian allies as timid as they had been after Kunersdorf, and all attempts against Frederick's entrenched camp of Bunzelwitz (see SEVEN YEARS' WAR) failed. He brilliantly seized his one fleeting opportunity, however, and stormed Schweidnitz on the night of Sept. 30/October 1st, 1761. His tireless activity continued to the end of the war, in conspicuous contrast with the temporizing strategy of Daun and Lacy. The student of the later campaigns of the Seven Years' War will probably admit that there was need of more aggressiveness than Daun displayed, and of more caution than suited Loudon's genius. But neither recognized this, and the last three years of the war are marked by an ever-increasing friction between the "Fabius" and the "Marcellus," as they were called, of the Austrian army.

After the peace, therefore, when Daun became the virtual commander-in-chief of the army, Loudon fell into the background. Offers were made, by Frederick the Great amongst others, to induce Loudon to transfer his services elsewhere. Loudon did not entertain these proposals, although negotiations went on for some years, and on Lacy succeeding Daun as president of the council of war Loudon was made inspector-general of infantry. Dissensions, however, continued between Loudon and Lacy, and on the accession of Joseph II., who was intimate with his rival, Loudon retired to his estate near Kuttenberg. Maria Theresa and Kaunitz caused him, however, to be made commander-in-chief in Bohemia and Moravia in 1769. This post he held for three years, and at the end of this time, contemplating retirement from the service, he settled again on his estate. Maria Theresa once more persuaded him to remain in the army, and, as his estate had diminished in value owing to agrarian troubles in Bohemia, she repurchased it from him (1776) on generous terms. Loudon then settled at Hadersdorf near Vienna, and shortly afterwards was made a field-marshal. Of this Carlyle (_Frederick the Great_) records that when Frederick the Great met Loudon in 1776 he deliberately addressed him in the emperor's presence as "Herr Feldmarschall." But the hint was not taken until February 1778.

In 1778 came the War of the Bavarian Succession. Joseph and Lacy were now reconciled to Loudon, and Loudon and Lacy commanded the two armies in the field. On this occasion, however, Loudon seems to have in a measure fallen below his reputation, while Lacy, who was opposed to Frederick's own army, earned new laurels. For two years after this Loudon lived quietly at Hadersdorf, and then the reverses of other generals in the Turkish War called him for the last time into the field. Though old and broken in health, he was commander-in-chief in fact as well as in name, and he won a last brilliant success by capturing Belgrade in three weeks, 1789. He died within the year, on the 14th of July at Neu-Titschein in Moravia, still on duty. His last appointment was that of commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Austria, which had been created for him by the new emperor Leopold. Loudon was buried in the grounds of Hadersdorf. Eight years before his death the emperor Joseph had caused a marble bust of this great soldier to be placed in the chamber of the council of war.

His son JOHANN LUDWIG ALEXIUS, Freiherr von Loudon (1762-1822) fought in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with credit, and rose to the rank of lieutenant-field-marshal.

See memoir by v. Arneth in _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, s.v.
"Laudon," and life by G. B. Malleson.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] His name is phonetically spelt Laudon or Laudohn by Germans, and
the latter form was that adopted by himself and his family. In 1759,
however, he reverted to the original Scottish form.

LOUDOUN, JOHN CAMPBELL, 1ST EARL OF (1598-1663), Scottish politician, eldest son of Sir James Campbell of Lawers, became Baron Loudoun in right of his wife Margaret, granddaughter of Hugh Campbell, 1st Baron Loudoun (d. 1622). He was created earl on the 12th of May 1633, but in consequence of his opposition to Charles I.'s church policy in Scotland the patent was stopped in Chancery. In 1637 he was one of the supplicants against the introduction of the English liturgy; and with John Leslie, 6th earl of Rothes, he took a leading part in the promulgation of the Covenant and in the General Assembly which met at Glasgow in the autumn of 1638. He served under General Leslie, and was one of the Scottish commissioners at the Pacification of Berwick in June 1639. In November of that year and again in 1640 the Scottish estates sent Loudoun with Charles Seton, 2nd earl of Dunfermline, to London on an embassy to Charles I. Loudoun intrigued with the French ambassador and with Thomas Savile, afterwards earl of Sussex, but without much success. He was in London when John Stewart, earl of Traquair, placed in Charles's hands a letter signed by Loudoun and six others and addressed to Louis XIII. In spite of his protest that the letter was never sent, and that it would in any case be covered by the amnesty granted at Berwick, he was sent to the Tower. He was released in June, and two months later he re-entered England with the Scottish invading army, and was one of the commissioners at Ripon in October. In the following August (1641) Charles opened parliament at Edinburgh in person, and in pursuance of a policy of conciliation towards the leaders of the Covenant Loudoun was made lord chancellor of Scotland, and his title of earl of Loudoun was allowed. He also became first commissioner of the treasury. In 1642 he was sent by the Scottish council to York to offer to mediate in the dispute between Charles and the parliament, and later on to Oxford, but in the second of these instances Charles refused to accept his authority. He was constantly employed in subsequent negotiations, and in 1647 was sent to Charles at Carisbrooke Castle, but the "Engagement" to assist the king there made displeased the extreme Covenanters, and Loudoun was obliged to retract his support of it. He was now entirely on the side of the duke of Argyll and the preachers. He assisted in the capacity of lord chancellor at Charles II.'s coronation at Scone, and was present at Dunbar. He joined in the royalist rising of 1653, but eventually surrendered to General Monk. His estates were forfeited by Cromwell, and a sum of money settled on the countess and her heirs. At the Restoration he was removed from the chancellorship, but a pension of £1000 granted him by Charles I. in 1643 was still allowed him. In 1662 he was heavily fined. He died in Edinburgh on the 15th of March 1663.

The earl's elder son, James (d. 1684), 2nd earl of Loudoun, passed his
life out of Great Britain, and when he died at Leiden was succeeded by
his son Hugh (d. 1731). The 3rd earl held various high positions in
England and Scotland, being chosen one of the representative peers for
Scotland at the union of the parliaments in 1707. He rendered good
service to the government during the rising of 1715, especially at the
battle of Sheriffmuir, and was succeeded as 4th earl by his son John
(1705-1782), who fought against the Jacobites in 1745, was
commander-in-chief of the British force in America in 1756 and died
unmarried. The title then passed to James Mure Campbell (d. 1786), a
grandson of the 2nd earl, and was afterwards borne by the marquesses
of Hastings, descendants of the 5th earl's daughter and heiress, Flora
(1780-1840). Again reverting to a female on the death of Henry, 4th
marquess of Hastings, in 1868, it came afterwards to Charles (b.
1855), a nephew of this marquess, who became 11th earl of Loudoun.

LOUDUN, a town of western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Vienne, on an eminence overlooking a fertile plain, 45 m. by rail S.W. of Tours. Pop. (1906) 3931. It was formerly surrounded by walls, of which a single gateway and two towers remain. Of the old castle of the counts of Anjou which was destroyed under Richelieu, the site now forming a public promenade, a fine rectangular donjon of the 12th century is preserved; at its base traces of Roman constructions have been found, with fragments of porphyry pavement, mosaics and mural paintings. The Carmelite convent was the scene of the trial of Urban Grandier, who was burnt alive for witchcraft in 1634; the old Romanesque church of Sainte Croix, of which he was curé, is now used as a market. The church of St Pierre-du-Marché, Gothic in style with a Renaissance portal, has a lofty stone spire. There are several curious old houses in the town. Théophraste Renaudot (d. 1653), founder of the _Gazette de France_, was born at Loudun, where there is a statue of him. The manufacture of lace and upholstery trimming and of farm implements is carried on, and there is a considerable trade in agricultural products, wine, &c. Loudun (_Laudunum_ in ancient times) was a town of importance during the religious wars and gave its name in 1616 to a treaty favourable to the Protestants.

LOUGHBOROUGH, a market town and municipal borough in the Loughborough (Mid) parliamentary division of Leicestershire, England, near the river Soar and on the Loughborough canal. Pop. (1901) 21,508. It is 110 m. N.N.W. of London by the Midland railway, and is served by the Great Central and a branch of the London and North-Western railways. The neighbourhood is a rich agricultural district, and to the S.W. lies the hilly tract known as Charnwood Forest. The church of All Saints stands on rising ground, and is a conspicuous object for many miles round; it is of Decorated work, and the tower is Perpendicular. The other churches are modern. Public buildings include the town hall and exchange, town offices, county hall and free library. The grammar school, founded in 1495 under the charity of Thomas Burton, occupies modern buildings in pleasant grounds. There is also a girls' grammar school partly dependent on the same foundation. The principal industry is hosiery making; there are also engineering, iron and dye works and bell foundries. The great bell for St Paul's cathedral, London, was cast here in 1881. Loughborough was incorporated in 1888. Area, 3045 acres.

The manor of Loughborough (_Lucteburne, Lucteburg, Lughteburgh_) was granted by William the Conqueror to Hugh Lupus, from whom it passed to the Despensers. In 1226-1227 when it belonged to Hugh Despenser he obtained various privileges for himself and his men and tenants there, among which were quittance from suits at the county and hundred courts, of sheriffs' aids and of view of frankpledge, and also a market every Thursday and a fair on the vigil, day and morrow of St Peter ad vincula. The market rights were purchased by the town in 1880 from the trustees of Thomas Cradock, late lord of the manor. Edward II. visited the manor several times when it belonged to his favourite, Hugh Despenser the elder. Among the subsequent lords were Henry de Beaumont and Alice his wife, Sir Edward Hastings, created Baron Hastings of Loughborough in 1558, Colonel Henry Hastings, created baron in 1645, and the earls of Huntingdon. Alexander Wedderburn was created Baron Loughborough in 1780 when he became chief justice of the common pleas. During the 19th century most of the manorial rights were purchased by the local board. Loughborough was at first governed by a bailiff, afterwards by a local board, and was finally incorporated in 1888 under a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. It has never been represented in parliament. Lace-making was formerly the chief industry, but machines for making lace set up in the town by John Heathcote were destroyed by the Luddites in 1816, and the manufacture lost its importance. Bell-founding was introduced in 1840. John Cleveland, the Royalist poet, was born at Loughborough in 1613, John Howe the painter in 1630 and Richard Pulteney the botanist in 1730.

See _Victoria County History, Leicestershire_; W. G. D. Fletcher,
_Chapters in the History of Loughborough_ (1883); Sir Thomas Pochin,
"Historical Description of Loughborough" (1770) (vol. viii. of
_Bibliotheca topographica Britannica_).

LOUGHREA, a market town of Co. Galway, Ireland, pleasantly situated on the N. shore of Lough Rea, 116 m. W. from Dublin by a branch from Attymon Junction on the Midland Great Western railway. Pop. (1901), 2815. There are slight remains of an Early English Carmelite friary dating c. 1300, which escaped the Dissolution. Loughrea is the seat of the Roman Catholic bishop of Clonfert, and has a cathedral built in 1900-1905. A part of the castle of Richard de Burgh, the founder of the friary, still survives, and there are traces of the town fortifications. In the neighbourhood are a cromlech and two ruined towers, and crannogs, or ancient stockaded islands, have been discovered in the lough. Apart from the surroundings of the lough, the neighbouring country is peculiarly desolate.

LOUGHTON, an urban district in the Epping parliamentary division of Essex, England, 11½ m. N.N.E. of Liverpool Street station, London, by the Great Eastern railway. Pop. (1901), 4730. This is one of the villages which has become the centre of a residential district, and is frequented by holiday-makers from London, owing to its proximity to the pleasant woodland scenery of Epping Forest. It lies on the eastern outskirts of the Forest, near the river Roding. There are several modern churches. The lordship of the manor was granted to Waltham Abbey. In the vicinity are large earthworks, probably of British origin, known as Loughton Camp.

LOUHANS, a town of east-central France in the old province of Franche-Comté, now capital of an arrondissement in the department of Saône-et-Loire, 34 m. N.N.E. of Mâcon by road. Pop. (1906), 3216. Its church has a fine tower of the 15th century, of which the balustrade is carved so as to form the first words of the Ave Maria. There are also a hospital of the 17th century with a collection of ancient earthenware, a town-hall of the 18th century and remains of ramparts of the 16th and 17th century. The town is the central market of the agricultural plain of Bresse; chickens form the chief article of commerce. There is also a large felt-hat manufactory.

LOUIS, or LEWIS (from the Frankish _Chlodowîch_, _Chlodwig_, Latinized as _Chlodowius_, _Lodhuwicus_, _Lodhuvicus_, whence--in the Strassburg oath of 842--O. Fr. _Lodhuwigs_, then _Chlovis_, _Loys_ and later _Louis_, whence Span. _Luiz_ and--through the Angevin kings--Hungarian _Lájos_; cf. Ger. _Ludwig_ or _Ludewig_, from O. H. Ger. _Hluduwîc_, _Hludwîg_, _Ludhuwîg_, M. H. Ger. _Ludewîc_; Ital. _Lodovico_), a masculine proper name, meaning "Fame-fight" or "Famous in fight," from old Frankish _chlud_, _chlod_ (O. H. Ger. _hlud_, _hlod_), "fame," and _wîch_ (O. H. Ger. _wîc_., _wîg_, A.S. _wîg_) "war," "battle" (cf. Gr. [Greek: Klytsmachos]). The name has been borne by numerous European sovereigns and others, of whom some are noticed below in the following order: (1) Roman emperors and Frankish and German kings, (2) kings of Bavaria, (3) kings of France, (4) kings of Hungary, (5) kings of Naples, (6) Louis of Nassau. (Louis Philippe, king of the French, is dealt with separately.)

LOUIS I. (778-840), surnamed the "Pious," Roman emperor, third son of the emperor Charlemagne and his wife Hildegarde, was born at Chasseneuil in central France, and crowned king of Aquitaine in 781. He received a good education; but as his tastes were ecclesiastical rather than military, the government of his kingdom was mainly conducted by his counsellors. Louis, however, gained sound experience in warfare in the defence of Aquitaine, shared in campaigns against the Saxons and the Avars, and led an army to Italy in 792. In 794 or 795 he married Irmengarde, daughter of Ingram, count of Haspen. After the deaths of his two elder brothers, Louis, at his father's command, crowned himself co-emperor at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 11th of September 813, and was formally associated in the government of the Empire, of which he became sole ruler, in the following January. He earned the surname of "Pious" by banishing his sisters and others of immoral life from court; by attempting to reform and purify monastic life; and by showing great liberality to the church. In October 816 he was crowned emperor at Reims by Pope Stephen IV.; and at Aix in July 817, he arranged for a division of his Empire among his sons. This was followed by a revolt of his nephew, Bernard, king of Italy; but the rising was easily suppressed, and Bernard was mutilated and killed. The emperor soon began to repent of this cruelty, and when his remorse had been accentuated by the death of his wife in 818, he pardoned the followers of Bernard and restored their estates, and in 822 did public penance at Attigny. In 819 he married Judith, daughter of Welf I., count of Bavaria, who in 823 bore him a son Charles, afterwards called the Bald. Judith made unceasing efforts to secure a kingdom for her child; and with the support of her eldest step-son Lothair, a district was carved out for Charles in 829. Discontent at this arrangement increased to the point of rebellion, which broke out the following year, provoked by Judith's intrigues with Bernard, count of Barcelona, whom she had installed as her favourite at court. Lothair and his brother Pippin joined the rebels, and after Judith had been sent into a convent and Bernard had fled to Spain, an assembly was held at Compiègne, when Louis was practically deposed and Lothair became the real ruler of the Empire. Sympathy was, however, soon aroused for the emperor, who was treated as a prisoner, and a second assembly was held at Nimwegen in October 830 when, with the concurrence of his sons Pippin and Louis, he was restored to power and Judith returned to court.

Further trouble between Pippin and his father led to the nominal transfer of Aquitaine from Pippin to his brother Charles in 831. The emperor's plans for a division of his dominions then led to a revolt of his three sons. Louis met them in June 833 near Kolmar, but owing possibly to the influence of Pope Gregory IV., who took part in the negotiations, he found himself deserted by his supporters, and the treachery and falsehood which marked the proceedings gave to the place the name of _Lügenfeld_, or the "field of lies." Judith, charged with infidelity, was again banished; Louis was sent into the monastery of St Medard at Soissons; and the government of the Empire was assumed by his sons. The emperor was forced to confess his sins, and declare himself unworthy of the throne, but Lothair did not succeed in his efforts to make his father a monk. Sympathy was again felt for Louis, and when the younger Louis had failed to induce Lothair to treat the emperor in a more becoming fashion, he and Pippin took up arms on behalf of their father. The result was that in March 834 Louis was restored to power at St Denis; Judith once more returned to his side and the kingdoms of Louis and Pippin were increased. The struggle with Lothair continued until the autumn, when he submitted to the emperor and was confined to Italy. To make the restoration more complete, a great assembly at Diedenhofen declared the deposition of Louis to have been contrary to law, and a few days later he was publicly restored in the cathedral of Metz. In December 838 Pippin died, and a new arrangement was made by which the Empire, except Bavaria, the kingdom of Louis, was divided between Lothair, now reconciled to his father, and Charles. The emperor was returning from suppressing a revolt on the part of his son Louis, provoked by this disposition, when he died on the 20th of June 840 on an island in the Rhine near Ingelheim. He was buried in the church of St Arnulf at Metz. Louis was a man of strong frame, who loved the chase, and did not shrink from the hardships of war. He was, however, easily influenced and was unequal to the government of the Empire bequeathed to him by his father. No sustained effort was made to ward off the inroads of the Danes and others, who were constantly attacking the borders of the Empire. Louis, who is also called _Le Débonnaire_, counts as Louis I., king of France.

See _Annales Fuldenses_; _Annales Bertiniani_; Thegan, _Vita
Hludowici_; the _Vita Hludowici_ attributed to Astronomus; Ermoldus
Nigellus, _In honorem Hludowici imperatoris_; Nithard, _Historiarum
libri_, all in the _Monumenta Germaniae historica_. _Scriptores_,
Bände i. and ii. (Hanover and Berlin, 1826 fol.); E. Mühlbacher, _Die
Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern_ (Innsbruck, 1881);
and _Deutsche Geschichte unter den Karolingern_ (Stuttgart, 1886); B.
Simson, _Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reichs unter Ludwig dem Frommen_
(Leipzig, 1874-1876); and E. Dümmler, _Geschichte des ostfränkischen
Reiches_ (Leipzig, 1887-1888). (A. W. H.*)

LOUIS II. (825-875), Roman emperor, eldest son of the emperor Lothair I., was designated king of Italy in 839, and taking up his residence in that country was crowned king at Rome by Pope Sergius II. on the 15th of June 844. He at once preferred a claim to the rights of an emperor in the city, which was decisively rejected; but in 850 he was crowned joint emperor at Rome by Pope Leo IV., and soon afterwards married his cousin, Engelberga, a daughter of King Louis the German, and undertook the independent government of Italy. He took the field against the Saracens; quashed some accusations against Pope Leo; held a diet at Pavia; and on the death of his father in September 855 became sole emperor. The division of Lothair's dominions, by which he obtained no territory outside Italy, aroused his discontent, and in 857 he allied himself with Louis the German against his brother Lothair, king of Lorraine, and King Charles the Bald. But after Louis had secured the election of Nicholas I. as pope in 858, he became reconciled with his brother, and received some lands south of the Jura in return for assistance given to Lothair in his efforts to obtain a divorce from his wife, Teutberga. In 863, on the death of his brother Charles, Louis received the kingdom of Provence, and in 864 came into collision with Pope Nicholas I. over his brother's divorce. The archbishops, who had been deposed by Nicholas for proclaiming this marriage invalid, obtained the support of the emperor, who reached Rome with an army in February 864; but, having been seized with fever, he made peace with the pope and left the city. In his efforts to restore order in Italy, Louis met with considerable success both against the turbulent princes of the peninsula and against the Saracens who were ravaging southern Italy. In 866 he routed these invaders, but could not follow up his successes owing to the want of a fleet. So in 869 he made an alliance with the eastern emperor, Basil I., who sent him some ships to assist in the capture of Bari, the headquarters of the Saracens, which succumbed in 871. Meanwhile his brother Lothair had died in 869, and owing to his detention in southern Italy he was unable to prevent the partition of Lorraine between Louis the German and Charles the Bald. Some jealousy between Louis and Basil followed the victory at Bari, and in reply to an insult from the eastern emperor Louis attempted to justify his right to the title "emperor of the Romans." He had withdrawn into Benevento to prepare for a further campaign, when he was treacherously attacked in his palace, robbed and imprisoned by Adelchis, prince of Benevento, in August 871. The landing of fresh bands of Saracens compelled Adelchis to release his prisoner a month later, and Louis was forced to swear he would take no revenge for this injury, nor ever enter Benevento with an army. Returning to Rome, he was released from his oath, and was crowned a second time as emperor by Pope Adrian II. on the 18th of May 872. He won further successes against the Saracens, who were driven from Capua, but the attempts of the emperor to punish Adelchis were not very successful. Returning to northern Italy, he died, somewhere in the province of Brescia, on the 12th of August 875, and was buried in the church of St Ambrose at Milan, having named as his successor in Italy his cousin Carloman, son of Louis the German. Louis was an excellent ruler, of whom it was said "in his time there was great peace, because every one could enjoy his own possessions."

See _Annales Bertiniani_, _Chronica S. Benedicti Casinensis_, both in
the _Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores_, Bände i. and iii.
(Hanover and Berlin, 1826 fol.); E. Mühlbacher, _Die Regesten des
Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern_ (Innsbruck, 1881); Th. Sickel,
_Acta regum et imperatorum Karolinorum, digesta et enarrata_ (Vienna,
1867-1868); and E. Dümmler, _Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches_
(Leipzig, 1887-1888). (A. W. H.*)