Page:EB1911 - Volume 16.djvu/700

 with the “Gentiles Idolators.” This pronouncement, indeed, though it certainly condemns the use of ceremonial lights in most of its later developments, and especially the conception of them as votive offerings whether to God or to the saints, does not necessarily exclude, though it undoubtedly discourages, their purely symbolical use. In this connexion it is worth pointing out that the homily against idolatry was reprinted, without alteration and by the king’s authority, long after altar lights had been restored under the influence of the high church party supreme at court. Illegal under the Act of Uniformity they seem never to have been. The use of “wax lights and tapers” formed one of the indictments brought by P. Smart, a Puritan prebendary of Durham, against Dr Burgoyne, Cosin and others for setting up “superstitious ceremonies” in the cathedral “contrary to the Act of Uniformity.” The indictments were dismissed in 1628 by Sir James Whitelocke, chief justice of Chester and a judge of the King’s Bench, and in 1629 by Sir Henry Yelverton, a judge of Common Pleas and himself a strong Puritan (see Hierurgia Anglicana, ii pp. 230 seq.). The use of ceremonial lights was among the indictments in the impeachment of Laud and other bishops by the House of Commons, but these were not based on the Act of Uniformity. From the Restoration onwards the use of ceremonial lights, though far from universal, was not unusual in cathedrals and collegiate churches. It was not, however, till the ritual revival of the 19th century that their use was at all widely extended in parish churches. The growing custom met with fierce opposition; the law was appealed to, and in 1872 the Privy Council declared altar lights to be illegal (Martin v. Mackonochie). This judgment, founded as was afterwards admitted on insufficient knowledge, produced no effect; and, in the absence of any authoritative pronouncement, advantage was taken of the ambiguous language of the Ornaments Rubric to introduce into many churches practically the whole ceremonial use of lights as practised in the pre-Reformation Church. The matter was again raised in the case of Read and others v. the Bishop of Lincoln (see ), one of the counts of the indictment being that the bishop had, during the celebration of Holy Communion, allowed two candles to be alight on a shelf or retable behind the communion table when they were not

necessary for giving light. The archbishop of Canterbury, in whose court the case was heard (1889), decided that the mere presence of two candles on the table, burning during the service but lit before it began, was lawful under the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI. and had never been made unlawful. On the case being appealed to the Privy Council, this particular indictment was dismissed on the ground that the vicar, not the bishop, was responsible for the presence of the lights, the general question of the legality of altar lights being discreetly left open.

The custom of placing lighted candles round the bodies of the dead, especially when “lying in state,” has never wholly died out in Protestant countries, though their significance has long been lost sight of. In the 18th century, moreover, it was still customary in England to accompany a funeral with lighted tapers. Picart (op. cit. 1737) gives a plate representing a funeral cortège preceded and accompanied by boys, each carrying four lighted candles in a branched candlestick. There seems to be no record of candles having been carried in other processions in England since the Reformation. The usage in this respect in some “ritualistic” churches is a revival of pre-Reformation ceremonial.

See the article “Lucerna,” by J. Toutain in Daremberg and Saglio’s ''Dict. des antiquités grecques et romaines'' (Paris, 1904); J. Marquardt, “Römische Privatalterthümer” (vol. v. of Becker’s Röm. Alterthümer), ii. 238–301; article “Cièrges et lampes,” in the Abbé J. A. Martigny’s ''Dict. des Antiquités Chrétiennes'' (Paris, 1865); the articles “Lichter” and “Koimetarien” (pp. 834 seq.) in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie (3rd ed., Leipzig. 1901); the article “Licht” in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon (Freiburg-i.-B., 1882–1901), an excellent exposition of the symbolism from the Catholic point of view, also “Kerze” and “Lichter”; W. Smith and S. Cheetham, ''Dict. of Chr. Antiquities'' (London, 1875–1880), i. 939 seq.; in all these numerous further references will be found. See also Mühlbauer, ''Gesch. u. Bedeutung der Wachslichter bei den'' kirchlichen Funktionen (Augsburg, 1874); V. Thalhofer, Handbuch der Katholischen Liturgik (Freiburg-i.-B., 1887), i. 666 seq.; and, for the post-Reformation use in the Church of England, Hierurgia Anglicana, new ed. by Vernon Staley (London, 1903).

LIGNE, CHARLES JOSEPH, (1735–1814), soldier and writer, came of a princely family of Hainaut, and was born at Brussels in 1735. As an Austrian subject he entered the imperial army at an early age. He distinguished himself by his valour in the Seven Years’ War, notably at Breslau, Leuthen, Hochkirch and Maxen, and after the war rose rapidly to the rank of lieutenant field marshal. He became the intimate friend and counsellor of the emperor Joseph II., and, inheriting his father’s vast estates, lived in the greatest splendour and luxury till the War of the Bavarian Succession brought him again into active service. This war was short and uneventful, and the prince then travelled in England, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and France, devoting himself impartially to the courts, the camps, the salons and the learned assemblies of philosophers and scientists in each country. In 1784 he was again employed in military work, and was promoted to Feldzeugmeister. In 1787 he was with Catherine II. in Russia, accompanied her in her journey to the Crimea, and was made a Russian field marshal by the empress. In 1788 he was present at the siege of Belgrade. Shortly after this he was invited to place himself at the head of the Belgian revolutionary movement, in which one of his sons and many of his relatives were prominent, but declined with great courtesy, saying that “he never revolted in the winter.” Though suspected by Joseph of collusion with the rebels, the two friends were not long estranged, and after the death of the emperor the prince remained in Vienna. His Brabant estates were overrun by the French in 1792–1793, and his eldest son killed in action at La Croix-du-Bois in the Argonne (September 14, 1792). He was given the rank of field marshal (1809) and an honorary command at court, living in spite of the loss of his estates in comparative luxury and devoting himself to literary work. He lived long enough to characterize the proceedings of the congress of Vienna with the famous mot: “Le Congrès danse mais ne marche pas.” He died at Vienna on the 13th of December 1814. His grandson, Eugene Lamoral de Ligne (1804–1880), was a distinguished Belgian statesman.

His collected works appeared in thirty-four volumes at Vienna during the last years of his life (Mélanges militaires, littéraires, sentimentaires), and he bequeathed his manuscripts to the emperor’s Trabant Guard, of which he was captain (&OElig;uvres posthumes, Dresden and Vienna, 1817). Selections were published in French and German (&OElig;uvres choisies de M. le prince de Ligne (Paris, 1809); Lettres et pensées du Maréchal Prince de Ligne, ed. by Madame de Staël (1809); &OElig;uvres historiques, littéraires ... correspondance et poésies diverses (Brussels, 1859); Des Prinzen Karl von Ligne militärische Werke, ed. Count Pappenheim (Sulzbach, 1814). The most important of his numerous works on all military subjects is the Fantaisies et préjugés militaires, which originally appeared in 1780. A modern edition is that published by J. Dumaine (Paris, 1879). A German version (Militärische Vorurtheile und Phantasien, &c.) appeared as early as 1783. This work, though it deals lightly and cavalierly with the most important subjects (the prince even proposes to found an international academy of the art of war, wherein the reputation of generals could be impartially weighed), is a military classic, and indispensable to the students of the post-Frederician period. On the whole, it may be said that the prince adhered to the school of (q.v.), and a full discussion will be found in Max Jähns’ Gesch. d. Kriegswissenschaften, iii. 2091 et seq. Another very celebrated work by the prince is the mock autobiography of Prince Eugene (1809).

See Revue de Bruxelles (October 1839); Reiffenberg, “Le Feld-maréchal Prince Charles Joseph de Ligne,” Mémoires de l’académie de Bruxelles, vol. xix.; Peetermans, Le Prince de Ligne, ou un écrivain grand seigneur (Liége, 1857), Études et notices historiques concernant l’histoire des Pays Bas, vol. iii. (Brussels, 1890); Mémoires