46 L U C L U C some of the longest and best, but many others, e.g., Prometheus, Menippus, Life of Vcmonax, Toxaris, Zeus Tragcedus, The Dream or the Cock, Icaromenippus (an amusing satire on the physical philosophers), are of considerable literary value. The excellent edition of C. Jacobitz, in the Teubner series, which is furnished with a very complete index, places the text in the student s hand in a much more satisfactory state than has yet fallen to the lot of riutarch in his Opera Moralia. (F. A. P.) LUCIAN, the martyr, was born, like the famous heathen writer of the same native, at Samosata. His parents, who were Christians, died when he was in his twelfth year. In his "youth he studied under Macarius of Edessa, and after receiving baptism he adopted a strictly ascetic life, and devoted himself with zeal to the continual study of Scripture. Settling at Antioch, he became a presbyter, and, while supporting himself by his skill as a swift writer, became celebrated as a teacher, pupils crowding to him from all quarters, so that he is regarded as the founder of the famous theological school of Antioch. He did not escape suspicion of heresy, and is represented as the con necting link between Paul of Samosata and Arius. Indeed, on the deposition of the former, he was excluded from ecclesiastical fellowship by three successive bishops of Antioch, while the latter seems to have been among his pupils (Theodoret, //. U., i. 3, 4). He was, however, restored before the outbreak of persecution, and the reputation won by his high character and learning was confirmed by his courageous martyrdom. He was carried to Nicomedia before the cruel Maximin, and persisting in his faith perished 312 A.D., under torture and hunger, which he refused to satisfy with food offered to idols. His remains were conveyed to Drepanum in Bithynia, and under Constantine the town was founded anew in his honour with the name of Helenopolis, and exempted from taxes by the emperor (327 A.D., see Chron. Pasch., Bonn ed., p. 527), Here, on the day after Epiphany 387 A.D. (the clay on which his martyrdom was commemorated), Chrysostom delivered the panegyrical homily from which, with notices in Eusebius (//. E., ix. 6), Theodoret (loc. cit.), and the other ecclesiastical historians, the life by Jerome (Vir. III., cap, 77), but especially from the account by S. Metaphrastes (cited at length in Bernhardy s notes to Suidas, s.v. voOevei), the facts above given are derived. See also, for the celebration of his day in the Syriac churches, Wright, Cat. of Syr. MSS., p. 283. Jerome says, " Feruntur eius de Fide libelli et breves ad non- nullos epistolse "; but only a short fragment of one epistle remains (Chron. Pasch., p. 516). The authorship of a confession of faith ascribed to Lucian and put forth at the semi-Arian synod of Antioch (341 A.D.) is questioned. Lucian s most important liter ary labour w r as his edition of the Septuagiut corrected by the Hebrew text, which, according to Jerome (Adv. Ruf., ii. 77), was in current use from Constantinople to Antioch. That the edition of Lucian is represented by the text used by Chrysostom and Theodoret, as well as by certain extant MSS. , such as the Arundelian of the British Museum, was proved* by F. Field (Prol. ad Origenis Hcxapla, cap. ix.), who points out that Lucian filled up lacunje of the Septuiigint text as compared with the Hebrew from the other Greek translations, that his method was harmonistic, and that he sometimes indulged in paraphrastic additions and other changes. Before the publication of Field s Hcxapla, Lagarde had already directed his attention to the Antiochian text (as that of Lucian may be called). See his Symmicta (ii. 142), tmdAnkundir/ung ciner neucn Ausrj. d. gr. Uebersetzung dcs A. T. (1882), in which an edition of this recension is promised, and the means for effecting it described. The accomplishment of this task may be looked to as the first step in the process of tracing backwards the history of the Septua- gint. From a statement of Jerome in his preface to the gospels it seems probable that Lucian had also a share in fixing the Syrian recension of the New Testament text, but of this it is impossible to speak with certainty. Compare the introductory volume of West- cott and Hort s New Testament, p. 138. LUCIFER, bishop of Cagliari (hence called Calaritanus or rather Car edit anus), an ardent supporter of the cause of Athanasius, after the unfavourable result of the synod of Aries in 353 volunteered to go to the court and endeavour to obtain a new and impartial council ; lie was accordingly sent by Pope Liberius, along with Pancratius the presbyter and Hilarius the deacon, but did not suc ceed in preventing the condemnation of Athanasius, which was renewed at Milan in 355. For his own persist ent adherence to the orthodox creed he was banished to Germanicia in Commagene; he afterwards lived at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, and finally in the upper Thebaid. His exile came to an end with the publication of Julian s edict in 362. From 363 until his death in 371 he lived at Cagliari in a state of voluntary separation from ecclesiastical fellowship with his former friends Eusebius of Vercelli, Athanasius, and the rest, on account of their mild decision at the synod of Alexandria in 362 with reference to the treatment of those who had unwillingly Arianized under the persecutions of Constantius. The Luciferian sect thus founded did not continue to subsist long after the death of its leader. It is doubtful whether it ever formulated any distinctive doctrine ; certainly it developed none of any importance. The memory of Lucifer is still cherished in Sardinia ; but, although popu larly regarded there as a saint, he has never been canonized. The controversial writings of Lucifer, dating from his exile, are chiefly remarkable for their passionate zeal and for the boldness and violence of the language addressed to the reigning emperor, whom he did not scruple to call the enemy of God and a second Saul, Ahab, and J-eroboam. Their titles, in the most probable chrono logical order, are De non parccndis in Deum ddiiiqucntibus, De rcgibus apostaticis, Ad Constantium Augustum pro Athanasio libri ii. , De non conveniendo cum hsercticis, and Moriendum csse pro Fil io Dei. Their quotations of Scripture are of considerable value to the critical student of the Latin text before Jerome. They were first collected and edited by Tilius (Paris, 1586), and afterwards re printed in the Bibliotheca Pat rum (1618) ; the best edition is that of the brothers Colet (Venice, 1778). LUCILIUS. Among the early Roman poets, of whose writings only fragments have been preserved, Lucilius was second in importance to Ennius. If he did not, like the epic poet of the republic, touch the imagination of his country men, and give expression to their highest ideal of national life, he exactly hit their ordinary mood, and expressed the energetic, critical, and combative temper which they carried into political and social life. He was thus regarded as the most genuine literary representative of the pure Roman spirit. The reputation which he enjoyed in the best ages of Roman literature is proved by the terms in which Cicero and Horace speak of him. Persius, Juvenal, and Quintilian vouch for the admiration with which he was regarded in the first century of the empire. The popularity which he enjoyed in his own time is attested by the fact that at his death in 102 B.C., although he had filled none of the offices of state, he received the honour of a public funeral. His chief claim to distinction is his literary originality. He alone among Roman writers established a new form of composition. He may be called the inventor of poetical satire, as he was the first to impress upon the rude inartistic medley, known to the Romans by the name of satura, that character of aggressive and censorious criticism of persons, morals, manners, politics, literature, &c., which the word satire has ever since denoted. In point of form the satire of Lucilius owed nothing to the Greeks. It was a legitimate development of an indigenous dramatic enter tainment, popular among the Romans before the first introduction of the forms of Greek art among them ; and it seems largely also to have employed the form of the familiar epistle which circumstances had developed among them about the time when Lucilius flourished. But the style, substance, and spirit of his writings were apparently
as ( riginal as the form. He seems to have commenced hi^