Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/405

 UT

366

LOTTZ

herieht d&rOsm9om$Utehaft far 1895 (Cologne. 1896); Rnbllbb. Dm Chrititmtum vnd die YtrirtUr dm iMuem Naturwiaamuchafi (FreibuxB. 1904).

J. H. ROMPBL.

Lot (Heb. tDl^; Sept. A(6r), son of Abraham's brother Aran (Gen., xi, 27), therefore Abraham's nephew (his "brother": xiii, 8, 11; xiv, 14, 16) and grandson of Thare, father of Abraham (xi, 31). Lot was among those whom Thare took with him out of Ur of the Chaldees, to go to the land of Chanaan. When Thare died in Haran, Lot continued the journey with Abraham. It may be inferred that Lot accom- ^mied his uncle to Sichcm, to the mountain between Bethel and Hai, and then to the south (xii, 6, 8, 9). Whether Lot went to Egypt with Abraham at the time of the famine (xii, 10-^) is not explicitly stated, but is implied in xiii, 1 : '^ And Abraham went up out of E^ypt, he and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him into the south. " After their return, they once more settled between Bethel and Hai (xiii, 3). Lot and Abraham had numerous flocks and herds, so niunerous that the pasture and watering places proved insufficient for them. Strife ensued between the herdsmen of Abraham and of Lot. Abraliam, in the interest of peace, proposed to his nephew that they should live apart, and even allowed Lot to t^ke his choice of the surrounding countr>'. Lot chose the wa- tered and fertile region " about the Jordan " (Kikkar), and fixed his abode in the citv of Sodom, whereas Abraham dwelt in the land of Chanaan (xiii, 6-12). The next incident in the life of Lot is related in con- nexion with the expedition of Chodorlahomor against tiie five cities **alx)ut the Jordan", including Sodom (xiv, 1 sqc^.). The kings of the Pentapolis were de- feated, their cities pillaged, and among those carried away by the victorious kings was I^t, who lost all his possessions (xiv, 12). Lot's predicament was made Known to Abraham, who at once chose three hundred and eighteen of his best men and set out in pursuit of the retreating victorious kings. He overtook them in Dan, where he surprised them at night, and route<l them completely. Lot and his possessions were res- cued by Abraham, who brought all back safely to Sodom (xiv, 13-16; see Abraham).

Again we read of Lot in connexion with the mission of the angels who had been sent by God to destroy the five cities in the valley of the Jordan. These angels, three in number, were first entertained by Abraham in the vale of Mambre (Gen., xviii, 2 sq(i.), and then two of them made their way towards Sodom, where they arrived in the evening (xix, 1). Here they met Ix)t, who, sitting in the gateway of the city — a common place of meeting in the East — ^arose and greeted the strangers, at the same time offering them the hospital- ity of his house. The strangers at first refusecl, but finally accepted the pressing invitation of Ix)t, who then prepared a feast for them (xix, 2, 3). That night the men of Sodom revealed their degradation by, attacking Lot's house and demanding liis two guests for their vile purpose (4, 5). Lot interceded in behalf of his guests in accordance with his duties as host, which are most sacred in the East, but made the mis- take of placing them al)ove his duties as father by of- fering his two daughters to the wicked designs of the Sodomites (6-8). The latter, however, refused the substitution, and just as they were about to inflict vio- lence upon Lot the two angels intervened, dra\*'ing Lot into the house and striking the men outside with blind- ness, thus preventing them from finding the ddor of the house (9-11). The angels then made known to JjOt the object of their visit to Sodom, which they were sent to destroy, and advised him to leave the city at once with his family and belongings. Lot imparted the news to his prospective sons-in-law, who, however, refused to consider it seriously. The next morning, the angels once more admonished Ix)t to leave Sodom, And when he still hesitated they took him, his wife, arxl

two daughters, and brought them out of the city, warn- ing them not to look back nor to remain in the vicin- ity of the doomed city, but to flee into the mountains (1 2-1 7) . The mountains, however, seemed too far dis- tant to Lot, and he requested to seek shelter in a small city nearer by. The request was granted, and Lot fled to Segor (Heb. Zo 'ar)^ which is also promised protec- tion (18-23). Sodom, Gomorrha, and the other cities of the Pentapolis were then destn^ed. Lot's wife, dis- regarding the injunction of the angels, looked back, and was converted into a pillar of salt (2i-26). Lot, seeing the terrible destruction of the five cities, feai«d for his own safety in Segor, and therefore fled with his two daughters into the mountains, where thejr dwelt in a cave (30). It was here, according to toe Sacred Text, that Lot's two daughters were guilty of incestu- ous intercourse with their father, the outcOToe of which was the birth of Moab and Ammon, the fathers of Is- rael 's future most bitter enemies (31-38). This last incident also closes the history of Lot. His name, however, occurs again in the expression *' the children of Lot", meaning the Moabites (Deut., ii, 9), and the Ammonites (Deut., ii, 19), and both (Ps., ixzxii, 9). In the New Testament, Christ refers to the destruction of Sodom *'in the days of Lot" (Luke, xvii, 28, 29), and St. Peter (II Pet., ii, 6-8) speaks of the deliver- ance of the ''just Lot". The fate of Lot's wife is re- ferred to in Wis., X, 7; Luke, xvii, 32. Accordinf; to Jewish and Christian tradition, the piUar of salt mto which she was converted was preserved for some tame (Josephus, *'Antiq.", I, xi, 4; Clement of Rome, "I Cor.", xi, 2; Irenseus, " Adv. Haer.", IV, xxxi). Vari- ous explanations are given of this phenomenon. Ac- cording to von Hummelauer ("Comment, in Gen.", Paris, 1895, 417), Lot's wife could easilv have been overtaken by the salty waters of the Dead Sea and lit- erally covered with salt. Kaulen had already ad- vanced a similar explanation, accounting for the coat- ing of salt by the heat of the flames releasing the salt fumes from the soil.

F. X. E. Albert.

Lottery is one of the aleatory contracts and is com- monly defined as a distribution of prises by lot or by chance. Each person who joine. in the lottery buys a numbered ticket and at a certain fixed time lots are cast by some method, as by drawing the numbers out of a hollow wheel, to decide to what numbers the priie or prizes are to be assigned. Some winners get much more than they contributed, some less, while others get nothing. It is obviously a kind of gambling if con- sidered from the point of view of the contributories; by the directors it is sometimes used as a means of raising money. Morally it is objectionable if carried to ex- cess as it t^nds to develop the gambling spirit and dis- tract people from earning a livelihood by nonest work. However, if there is no fraud of any sort in the trans- action, and if there is some sort of proportion between the price of a ticket and the value of a chance of ^n- ing a prize, a lotter\' cannot be condemned as in itself immoral. In the tJnited States they were fonneriy permitted, but in 1890 Congress forbade the mails to oe used to promote any lottery enterprise, and now they are generally prohibited by state legislation. In England lotteries have long been forbidden by law un- less conducted by art unions carr^'ing on business by royal charter or under a constitution and rules ap- proved hv the Privv Council.

Ballehini, Opua Morale, III (Prato, 1892); Oftmoor. Theologia M oralis (DnDincls, 1909) ; SuiTKit, A Manual of Moral Theoloffu, I (New York. 1908).

T. Slater.

Lotti, Antonio, composer, b. at Venice in 1667; d. there, 5 Januar}', 1740 and studied under Legrensi, producing an opera, *'I1 Giustino", in his sixteenth vear. On 31 May. 1092, he was appointed second or- 'gsnist of St. Mark's, and on 17 August, 1704, he sue-