THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
is that he describes them not as deceivers, as criminals, or as revolutionaries, but merely as enthusiasts, credulous indeed, but capable of self-sacrifice and deep brotherly love. The single word " sophist " applied to Christ sufficed to stamp the great satirist as a blasphemer in the eyes of later generations, and cause them to neglect the historical value of the evidence which he supplies for the purity and uprightness of the Christian life and ideal as they were seen in his day. (A. Harnack.)
Bibliography: Perhaps the best edition of Lucian's works is by T. Hemsterhuis and J. F. Reitz, 3 vols., Amsterdam, 1743; a convenient one is by W. Dindorf, with Lat. transl.,
3 vols., Paris, 1840; another is by F. Fritsche, 3 vols., Rostock, 1860-82; and still another is in the Tauchnitz series by C. H. Weise, 4 vols., Leipsic, 1867-77. There is an Eng. transl. by several hands, with life of Lucian by Dryden, 4 vols., London, 1711; one by T. Francklin,
4 vol*, ib. 1781 (of great merit); and one by H. W. Fowler, 4 vols., ib. 1905. A Fr. transl. of the works is by L. Humbert, 2 vols., Paris, 1896, and an excellent Germ, transl. is by Wieland, 6 vols., Leipsic, 1788-89. Consult: J. Bernays, Lucian und die Kyniker, Berlin, 1879; C. T. Keim, CeUus, Zurich, 1862; J. M. Cotterill, Pereorinus Proteus, Edinburgh, 1879 (claims it is a forgery, perhaps by Henry Stephens the Reformation printer) ; M. Croizet, Essai sur la vie et les ceuvres de Lucien, Paris, 1882; W. R. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, ii. 812-822, London, 1890; DCB, iii. 744-748. The editions and translations have notes and introductions, and often a life of the author.
LUCIDUS, lu'sid-us: A Gallic priest of the second half of the fifth century. He held decided predestinarian views, going further even than Augustine and believing that at the fall man had utterly lost the freedom of his will, that God had determined beforehand that some were to be damned and others saved, and hence that Christ did not die for all but only for the elect, and finally that a " vessel unto dishonor " can never become a " vessel unto honor." A synod was summoned in 475 at Aries to condemn his views, and also one at Lyons in 476. Lucidus was compelled to recant chiefly through the influence of Faustus of Riez (q.v.), who, being a friend of Lucidus and also one of the most important members of the synod, had a lengthy correspondence with him on the subject. A letter to Lucidus by Faustus is in MPL, liii. 683.
LUCIFER (Hebr. Helel, "Shining one," R. V. " Day star ") : A term applied by Isaiah to the king of Babylon (Isa. xiv. 12), and not occurring elsewhere in the Bible. By Tertullian, Jerome, and others the name was applied to Satan, and in the Middle Ages it became common in this sense. By Gunkel (Schop/ung und Chaos, pp. 132 sqq., Gottingen, 1895) the passage in Isaiah is regarded as embodying a reference to a nature myth.
LUCIFER OF CALARIS AND THE LUCIFERI-
ANS: Bishop of Calaris (the modern Cagliari) in Sardinia, and his followers. The dates of Lucifer are uncertain; he died perhaps 371. He first appears in history as the envoy of Pope Liberius (q.v.) to the Emperor Constantius to urge the calling of a new synod. At the Synod of Milan, 355, he stood with the opposition, held firm with a few others, and, like these, was exiled. For a while he then lived at Germanicia in Commagene; next, at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, and afterward in the Thebaid. During his exile, he wrote some vehe-
ment polemics (ed. Hartel, in CSEL, vol. xiv., Vienna, 1886) against Emperor Constantius, as a patron of heretics and the enemy of the true faith. These writings may, with some degree of probability, be arranged in the following order: De non conveniendo cum haereticis, de regibus apostaticis, de Athanasio I and //., all prior to the autumn of 358; De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus, after June, 359; Moriendum esse pro Dei Filio, 360 at the earliest, perhaps not until 361. Copious Biblical quotations give these documents no little value as bearing on the text of the Bible before Jerome and on the history of the canon. But, in other aspects, they are diffuse and repetitious, void of literary originality, and omit giving credit to authors from whom citations are made. Yet Lucifer's writings afford a vivid picture of the narrow yet honest zeal of a man loyal to his convictions.
The death of Constantius and the advent of Julian ended Lucifer's exile. In 362 he was at Antioch, trying unsuccessfully to settle the state of confusion there (see Meletius op Antioch). He combated with especial severity the lenient treatment of ecclesiastics who had become compromised by their defection from the right faith under Constantius, and insisted that they be stripped of their ecclesiastical offices. When at Naples, he refused church fellowship to Bishop Zosimus. He retired, eventually, and in sullen temper, to Calaris; where he lived revered, indeed, for his confessional constancy and his austere conversation, but in separation from a Church that he believed to be stained by indulgence of heretical doctrine. He was ever afterward the " Holy Sardinian"; and in 1623 his remains were deposited in the cathedral of Cagliari.
After his death Sardinia continued the center of the Luciferian coterie, a sect persistently entangling itself in the thought that the Church had become a harlot. The Luciferians were not confined to Sardinia, however. In Spain they reverenced Bishop Gregory of Elvira (q.v.); at Treves, their ideas were advocated by the Presbyter Bonosus; in Rome itself there was a Luciferian party (not to be confused with the followers of TJrsinus, q.v.), against which Jerome wrote his Alter catio Luciferiani et orthodoxi (MPL, xxiii. 153-182); and Hilarius, the Roman deacon (q.v.), was a Luciferian. Ephesius, on a journey to the East (382 or 383), fell in with some Luciferians at Oxyrhynchos (Heptanomos, Egypt), who had for their bishop a monk Heraclidas, titular of Eleutheropolis (Palestine). And at Eleutheropolis were the two presbyters, Faustinus and Marcellinus, charged with holding assemblies for divine worship in the houses of their associates and opposed by the resident bishop. They complained against the bishop, and not in vain, to the Emperor Theodosius (see Faustinus), since a rescript of 384 forbade the persecution of those who stood in ecclesiastical fellowship with the Spaniard Gregory, and the oriental Heraclidas. By the irony of history, this imperial edict is the last intelligence concerning the Luciferians. G. Kruger.
Bibliography: The four most important treatments of the subject are: G. Kruger, Lucifer, Bischof von Calaris,