Page:EB1911 - Volume 16.djvu/558

Rh 8 by 3 in., the latter on mere fragments of papyrus which have been pieced together. The former was first deciphered and described by Dr Fritz Krebs, the latter by Dr K. Wessely: both are given and commented upon by Dr Benson. There is a remarkable similarity between them: in each the form is that N. “was ever constant in sacrificing to the gods”; and that he now, in the presence of the commissioners of the sacrifices ( ), has both sacrificed and drunk [or has poured libations], and has tasted of the victims, in witness whereof he begs them to sign this certificate. Then follows the signature, with attestations. The former of the two is dated, and the date must fall in the year 250. It is impossible to prove that either of the documents actually refers to Christians: they may have been given to pagans who had been accused and had cleared themselves, or to former Christians who had apostatized. But no doubt libelli in this same form were delivered, in Egypt at least, to Christians who secured immunity without actual apostasy; and the form in Italy and Africa probably did not differ widely from this. The practice gave rise to complicated problems of ecclesiastical discipline, which are reflected in the correspondence of Cyprian and especially in the Novatian controversy.

See E. W. Benson, Cyprian (London, 1897); ''Theol. Literaturzeitung'', 20th of January and 17th of March 1894.

LIBER and LIBERA, in Roman mythology, deities, male and female, identified with the Greek Dionysus and Persephone. In honour of Liber (also called Liber Pater and Bacchus) two festivals were celebrated. In the country feast of the vintage, held at the time of the gathering of the grapes, and the city festival of March 17th called Liberalia (Ovid, Fasti, iii. 711) we find purely Italian ceremonial unaffected by Greek religion. The country festival was a great merry-making, where the first-fruits of the new must were offered to the gods. It was characterized by the grossest symbolism, in honour of the fertility of nature. In the city festival, growing civilization had impressed a new character on the primitive religion, and connected it with the framework of society. At this time the youths laid aside the boy’s toga praetexta and assumed the man’s toga libera or virilis (Fasti, iii. 771). Cakes of meal, honey and oil were offered to the two deities at this festival. Liber was originally an old Italian god of the productivity of nature, especially of the vine. His name indicated the free, unrestrained character of his worship. When, at an early period, the Hellenic religion of Demeter spread to Rome, Liber and Libera were identified with Dionysus and Persephone, and associated with another Italian goddess Ceres, who was identified with Demeter. By order of the Sibylline books, a temple was built to these three deities near the Circus Flaminius; the whole cultus was borrowed from the Greeks, down even to the terminology, and priestesses were brought from the Greek cities.

 LIBERAL PARTY, in Great Britain, the name given to and accepted by the successors of the old Whig party (see ), representing the political party opposed to Toryism or Conservatism, and claiming to be the originators and champions of political reform and progressive legislation. The term came into general use definitely as the name of one of the two great parties in the state when Mr Gladstone became its leader, but before this it had already become current coin, as a political appellation, through a natural association with the use of such phrases as “liberal ideas,” in the sense of “favourable to change,” or “in support of political freedom and democracy.” In this respect it was the outcome of the French Revolution, and in the early years of the 19th century the term was used in a French form; thus Southey in 1816 wrote about the “British Liberales.” But the Reform Act and the work of Bentham and Mill resulted in the crystallization of the term. In Leigh Hunt’s autobiography (1850) we read of “newer and more thorough-going Whigs. . . known by the name of Radicals. . . since called Liberals”; and J. S. Mill in 1865 wrote (from his own Liberal point of view), “A Liberal is he who looks forward for his principles of government; a Tory looks backward.” The gradual adoption of the term for one of the great parties, superseding “Whig,” was helped by the transition period of “Liberal Conservatism,” describing the position of the later Peelites; and Mr Gladstone’s own career is the best instance of its changing signification; moreover the adjective “liberal” came meanwhile into common use in other spheres than that of parliamentary politics, e.g. in religion, as meaning “intellectually advanced” and free from the trammels of tradition. Broadly speaking, the Liberal party stands for progressive legislation in accordance with freedom of social development and advanced ethical ideas. It claims to represent government by the people, by means of trust in the people, in a sense which denies genuine popular sympathy to its opponents. Being largely composed of dissenters, it has identified itself with opposition to the vested interests of the Church of England; and, being apt to be thwarted by the House of Lords, with attempts to override the veto of that house. Its old watchword, “Peace, retrenchment and reform,” indicated its tendency to avoidance of a “spirited” foreign policy, and to parsimony in expenditure. But throughout its career the Liberal party has always been pushed forward by its extreme Radical wing, and economy in the spending of public money is no longer cherished by those who chiefly represent the non-taxpaying classes. The party organization lends itself to the influence of new forces. In 1861 a central organization was started in the “Liberal Registration Association,” composed “of gentlemen of known Liberal opinions”; and a number of “Liberal Associations” soon rose throughout the country. Of these, that at Birmingham became, under Mr J. Chamberlain and his active supporter Mr Schnadhorst, particularly active in the ’seventies; and it was due to Mr Schnadhorst that in 1877 a conference was held at Birmingham which resulted in the formation of the “National Federation of Liberal Associations,” or “National Liberal Federation,” representing a system of organization which was dubbed by Lord Beaconsfield “the Caucus.” The Birmingham Caucus and the Central Liberal Association thus coexisted, the first as an independent democratic institution, the second as the official body representing the whips of the party, the first more advanced and “Radical,” the second inclined to Whiggishness. Friction naturally resulted, but the 1880 elections confirmed the success of the Caucus and consolidated its power. And in spite of the Home Rule crisis in 1886, resulting in the splitting off of the Liberal Unionists—“dissentient Liberals,” as Mr Gladstone called them—from the Liberal party, the organization of the National Liberal Federation remained, in the dark days of the party, its main support. Its headquarters were, however, removed to London, and under Mr Schnadhorst it was practically amalgamated with the old Central Association.

It is impossible here to write in detail the later history of the Liberal party, but the salient facts will be found in such articles as those on Mr Gladstone, Mr J. Chamberlain, Lord Rosebery, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr H. H. Asquith and Mr David Lloyd George.

See, apart from general histories of the period, M. Ostrogorski’s Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (Eng. trans. 1902).

 LIBER DIURNUS ROMANORUM PONTIFICUM, or “Journal of the Roman Pontiffs,” the name given to a collection of formulae used in the papal chancellery in preparing official documents, such as the installation of a pope, the bestowal of the pallium and the grant of papal privileges. It was compiled between 685 and 751, and was constantly employed until the 11th century, when, owing to the changed circumstances of the Church, it fell into disuse, and was soon forgotten and lost. During the 17th century a manuscript of the Liber was discovered in Rome by the humanist, Lucas Holstenius, who prepared an edition for publication; for politic reasons, however, the papal authorities would not allow this to appear, as the book asserted the superiority of a general council over the pope. It was, however, published in France by the Jesuit, Jean Garnier, in 1680, and other editions quickly followed.

The best modern editions are one by Eugène de Rozière (Paris, 1869) and another by T. E. von Sichel (Vienna, 1889), both of which contain critical introductions. The two existing manuscripts of the Liber are in the Vatican library, Rome, and in the library of St Ambrose at Milan.

