Lempriere, .Joiix, a distinguished English biogra- pher, was b(irn in Jersey about 1760. He was educated at Winchester and at Pembroke College, Oxford, and subsc(iueii(ly became first head master of Abmgdon Grammar-school, and later of the school at Exeter. In 1810 he resigned the latter, and the following year was presented to the livings of Meeth and Newton Petrock, in Devonshire, which he retained until his death, Feb. 1, 1824. Lempriere was a man of extensive learning, and thoroughly acquainted with antiquity. His Bibliotheca Clasdca (1788, 8vo; subsequently reprinted, with addi- tions by himself) is still in general use in the universi- ties. He Avrote also a translation of Herodotus, with notes (1792), of which the first volume only was pub- lished, and a Universal Biography (1803, 4to and 8vo). This last wprk, compiled with great care, has run through several editions. The name of Lempriere was once well known to every English-speaking classical student, but
the rising generation is forgetting it, and it will soon become vox et praterea nihil. A Classical Dictionary (^Bibliotheca Classica, 1788) of his was for many years the English standard work of reference on all matters of ancient mythology, biography, and geograph}% See Davenport, Ann. Biog. 1824 ; Hoefer, Nouv. Biog. Gener, xxx, 643 ; Chambers, Cycloj^adia, s. v. ; Allibone, Diet. of Brit, and Anier. Authors, vol. ii, s. v.
Lem'uel (Hebrew Lemuel', ^X^l^^, Prov. xxxi, 1 ; Sept. VTTU Srcoi), Vulgate Lamuel; also Lemoel, huh'cb Prov. xxxi, 4; Sept. Travra ttouI, \ii\gate Lamuel), an unknown prince, to whom the admonitory apothegms of Prov. xxxi, 2-9 were originally addressed by his mother. Most interpreters understand Solomon to be meant either symbolically (the name signifying to God, i. e. created by him) or by a pleasing epithet (see Ro- senmliller. Scholia ad Prov. p. 718). The Rabbinical commentators identify Lemuel with Solomon, and tell a strange tale that when he married the tlaughter of Pharaoh, on the day of the dedication of the Temple, he assembled musicians of all kinds, and passed the night awake. On the morrow he slept till the fourth hour, with the keys of the Temple beneath his pillow, when his mother entered, and upbraided him in the words of Prov. xxxi, 2-9. Others (e. g. Grotius) refer it to Hezekiah (by a precarious etymology), while still others (e. g. Gesenius) think that no Israelite is referred to, but some neighboring petty Arabian prince. On the other hand, according to PUchhorn (^Einkitung, v, 106), Lemuel is altogether an imaginary person (so Ewald; comp. Bertholdt, v, 2196 sq.). Prof. Stuart (Comment, on Prov. p. 403 sq.) renders the expression "Lemuel, the king of Massa," and regards him as the brother of Agur, whom he makes to have been likewise a son of the queen of Massa, in the neighborhood of Dumah. See Agur; Ithiel. In the reign of Hezekiali, a roving band of Simeonites drove out the Amalekitcs from IMount Seir and settled in their stead (1 Chron. \v, 38- 43), and from these exiles of Israelitish origin Hitzig conjectures that Lemuel and Agur were descended, the former having been born in the land of Israel ; and that the name Lemuel is an older form of Nemuel, the first- born of Simeon (^Die Spriiche Salomons, p. 310-314), But this interpretation is far-fetched ; and none is more likely than that which fixes the epithet upon Solomon. See PiiovERBS.
Lemiires, the general designation given by the Ro- mans to all spirits of departed persons, of whom the good were honored as Lares (q. v.), and the bad (Lar- va;) were feared, as ghosts or spectres still are by the superstitious. The common idea was that the Lemures and Larva; were the same, and were said to wander about during the night, seekuig for an opportunity of inliicting injury on the living (Horat. Epist. ii, 2, 209; Pers. V, 185). The festival called Lemuria was held on the 9th, 11th, and 13th of May, and was accompanied with ceremonies of washing hands, throwing black beans over the head, etc., and the pronunciation nine times of these words : " Begone, you spectres of the house !" which deprived the Lemures of their power to harm. Ovid describes the Lemuria in the fifth book of his I'\isti. See De Deo Sacr. p. 237, ed. Bip. ; Servius, ad uEn. iii, 63 ; Varro, ap. Nov. p. 135 ; comp. Hartung, Die Religion dcr Rdmer, i, 55, etc. ; Smith, Diet, of Greek and Rom. Biog. and Myth. vol. ii, s. v. ; Chambers, Cyclop, s. v.
Leud (represented by several Heb. words which iu other forms likewise signify to bory-oiv, e.g. iTib, lavah' ; T\'dXnashah' ; I2^t\abat'; Gr. (lavfi^otjXfKao). Among the Israelites, in the time of INIoses, it must have been very common to lend on pledge, in the strict sense, ac- cording to the meaning of the word in natural law, which allows the creditor, in case of non-payment, to appropri- ate the pledge to his own behoof, without any authori- tative interference of a magistrate, and to keep it just as rightfully as if it had been bought with the sum
LENFANT
344
LENFANT
which has been lent for it, and which rcmalms unpaid. But while pledges are under no judicial regulation, much extortion and villainy may he practiced, when the poor man ^vho -wishes to borrow is in straits, and must of course submit to all the terms of the opulent lender. It will not be imputed to Moses as a fault that his stat- iitt's contain not those legal reliucments, which probably were not then invented, and which even yet may be said rather to be on record in our statute-books than to be in our practice. They would have been dangerous to his people, and peculiarly oii[)ressive to the poor. He let pli'dge remain in its proper sense, pledge, and thus facilitated the obtaining of loans, satisfj'ing himself with making laws against some of the chief abuses of pledg- ing (Michaelis, Mos. Recht.). See Pledge. These laws may be found in Exod. xxii, 25 ; Deut. xxiv, G, 10-13. l»y the analogy of these laws, other sorts of pledges ctiually, if not more indispensable, such as the utensils necessary for agriculture, or the ox and ass used for the plough, must certainly, and with equal, and even great- er reason, have been restored. The law in Deut. xxiv, 12, lo, is expressed in such general terms, that we can- not but see that the pledge under which the debtor must sleep is merely given as an example, and conclude, of course, that, in general, from the needy no pledge was to be exacted, the want of which might expose him to an inconvenience or hardship, more especially when we find the lawgiver here declaring that God would regard the restoration of such pledges as almsgiving, or righteous- ness. So it was in fact, and at the same time it was at- tended with no loss whatever to the creditor; for he had it in his power, at last, by the aid of summary justice, to lay hold of the whole property of the debtor, and if he had none, of his person ; and in the event of non-pay- ment, to take him for a hired servant. The law gave him sufficient security ; but with this single difference, that he durst not make good payment at his own hand, but must prosecute (Lev. xxv, 39-55 ; Neh. v, 5). See Debt. In the book of Job, the character of a lender upon pledge io thus depicted: "He extorts pledges without having lent, and makes his debtors go naked" (xxii, 6 ; xxiv, 7) ; " He takes the widow's ox for a pledge" (xxiv, 3) ; " He takes the infant of the needy for a pledge" (xxiv, 9-11). On this subject our Saviour exhorted his disciples to the most liberal and forbearing course towards all whom, they could aid or who were indebted to them (Luke vi, 30-35). See Loan ; Usuuy.