The name Lot (tD⅛) signifies “a veil,” which has led Goldzieher, Mythologie, p. 216 sq., to the arbitrary hypothesis that the story of Lot and his daughters is a myth about the night. Lot and his daughters passed into Arabic tradition from the Jews. The daughters are named Zahy and Ra'wa by Mas'ûdy, ii. 139; but other Arabian writers give other forms.

LOT, a south-westerly department of central France, corresponding to what was formerly known as Quercy (the country of the Cadurci), a district of the old province of Guyenne, is situated between 44° 12' and 45° 5' N. lat., and between 1° and *2° 12' E. long., and is bounded on the N. by Corrèze, on the W. by Dordogne and Lot-et-Garonne, on the S. by Tarn-et-Garonne, and on the E. by Aveyron and Cantal. Its extreme length, from north-east to south-west, is about 52 miles, and its breadth from north-west to south-east 31 miles, with an area of 2013 square miles. It slopes towards the south-west, from a maximum altitude of 2560 feet on the borders of Cantal to a minimum of 213 feet at the point where the river Lot quits the department, through a wide geological range beginning with primary rocks (granite, gneiss, mica-schists), which are succeeded by lias, oolitic limestone (occupying the greater portion of the area), chalks, .and finally by Tertiary formations. The Lot, which traverses it from east to west, is navigable for the whole distance (78 miles) with the help of locks; its principal tributary within the department is the Célé (on the right). In the north of the department the Dordogne has a course of 37 miles; among its tributaries are the Cère, which has its rise in Cantal,, and the Ouysse, a river of no great length, but remarkable for the abundance of its waters. The streams in the south of Lot all flow into the Tarn. By the Dordogne and Lot the surface is divided into a number of limestone plateaus known by the name of “causses”; that to the north of the Dordogne is called the Causse de Martel; between the Dordogne and the Lot is the Causse de Gramat or de Rocamadour; south of the Lot is the Causse de Cahors. These “causses,” owing to the rapid disappearance of the rain through the faults in the limestone, have for the most part an arid appearance, and their rivulets are generally mere dry beds; but their altitude (from 700 to 1300 feet, much lower therefore than that of the similar plateaus in Lozère, Hérault, and Aveyron) admits of the cultivation of the vine; they also yield a small quantity of maize, wheat, oats, rye, and potatoes, and some wood. The deep intervening valleys are full of verdure, being well watered by abundant springs supplied by drainage from the plateaux above. The climate is on the whole that of the Girondine region; the valleys are warm, and the rainfall is somewhat above the average for France. The difference of temperature between the higher parts of the department belonging to the central plateau and the sheltered valleys of the south-west is considerable. Of the entire area of the department 691,920 acres are arable, 222,402 are forest land, 168,038 are occupied by vineyards, 64,250 are heath, and 61,778 are meadow. Sheep are the most abundant kind of live stock; but pigs, horned cattle, horses, asses, and mules, and goats are also reared, as well as poultry in large quantities, and bees. Wine is the principal product of the department, the most valued being that of Cahors or Côte du Lot. It is used partly for blending with other wines and partly for local consumption. The north-east cantons supply large quantities of chestnuts; apples, cherries, and peaches are common, and the department also grows tobacco and supplies truffles. The iron, lead, and zinc deposits are unimportant. Marble, millstones, limestone, and clay are obtained to some extent, but phosphate of lime is the most valuable mineral product of Lot. The manufactures are inconsiderable; but there are numerous mills, and wool spinning and carding as well as cloth making, tanning, currying, brewing, and agricultural implement making are carried on to some extent. The exports consist of grain, flour, wine, brandy, live stock, nuts, truffles, prunes, tobacco, wood, phosphate of lime, leather, and wool. The population in 1876 was 276,512. The three arrondissements are Cahors, Figeac, and Gourdon; there are twenty-nine cantons and three hundred and twenty-three communes.

Lot, any thing cast or drawn in order to determine any matter in question, Proverbs xviii, 18. We see the use of lots among the Hebrews in many places of Scripture: God commands, for example, that lots should be cast upon the two goats which were offered for the sins of the people, upon the solemn day of expiation, to know which of the two should be sacrificed, and which liberated, Lev. xvi, 8–10. He required also that the land of promise should be divided by lot as soon as it was conquered; which command Joshua accordingly executed, Num. xxvi, 55, 56; xxxiii, 54; xxxiv, 13, &c; Joshua xiv-xvi; hence the term lot” is used for an inheritance, Thou maintainest my lot;” and figuratively for a happy state or condition. The priests and Levites had their cities appointed by lot. Lastly, in the time of David, the four and twenty classes of the priests and Levites were distributed by lot, to determine in what order they should wait in the temple, 1 Chron. vi, 54, 61; xxiv, 5; xxv, 8. In the division of the spoil, after victory, lots were likewise cast, to give every man his portion, Obadiah 11; Nahum iii, 10, &c. In the New Testament, after the death of Judas, lots were cast to decide who should occupy the place of the traitor, Acts i, 26. From the above instances, it is clear that when men have recourse to this method, the matter ought to be of the greatest importance, and no other apparent way left to determine it; and the manner of making the appeal should be solemn and grave, if we would escape the guilt of taking the name of God in vain. It unquestionably implies a solemn appeal to the Most High to interpose by his decision; and so every thinking man will be very careful that he has a true and religious ground for so serious a proceeding; and few if any cases can now occur in which it can have any justification. The ancient manner of casting lots, was either in some person’s lap,” or fold of the robe; into a helmet, or urn, or other vessel, in which they might be shaken before they were drawn or cast. LOVE-FEASTS. It is Godwin’s opinion, that the _agapæ_, or love-feasts, of the primitive Christians, were derived from the חגים or feasts upon the sacrifices, at which the Jews entertained their friends, and fed the poor; Deut. xii, 18; xxvi, 12. There were also feasts of much the same kind in use among the Greeks and Romans. The former were wont to offer certain sacrifices to their gods, which were afterward given to the poor. They had likewise public feasts for certain districts, suppose for a town or a city, toward which all who could afford it, contributed, in proportion to their different abilities, and all partook of it in common. Of this sort were the συσσίτια of the Cretans; and the φιδιτία of the Lacedæmonians, instituted by Lycurgus, and so called ϖαρὰ τῆς φιλίας, (the λ being changed into δ according to their usual orthography,) as denoting that love and friendship which they were intended to promote among neighbours and fellow citizens. The Romans likewise had a feast of the same kind, called _charistia_; which was a meeting only of those who were akin to each other; and the design of it was, that if any quarrel or misunderstanding had happened among any of them, they might there be reconciled. To this Ovid alludes in the second book of his Fasti:-- _Proxima cognati dixere charistia cari, Et venit ad socios turba propinqua deos._ v. 617. [The feasts next in order beloved relatives called _charistia_, at which the kindred throng assembled under their family household gods.] In imitation either of these Jewish or Gentile love-feasts, or probably of both, the primitive Christians, in each particular church, had likewise their love-feasts, which were supplied by the contribution of the members, according to their several abilities, and partaken of by all in common. And whether they were converts from among the Jews or Gentiles, they retained their old custom with very little alteration, and as their ἀγάπαι had been commonly annexed to their sacrifices, so they were now annexed to the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ at the Lord’s Supper; and were therefore held on the Lord’s day before or after the celebration of that ordinance. It would seem at Corinth, in the Apostles’ days, they were ordinarily held before; for when the Corinthians are blamed for unworthily receiving the Lord’s Supper, it is partly charged upon this, that some of them came drunk to that ordinance, having indulged to excess at the preceding love-feast: Every one taketh before, ϖρολαμϐανει, his own supper, and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” 1 Cor. xi, 21. This shows, says Dr. Whitby, that this banquet, namely, the love-feast, was celebrated before the Lord’s Supper. But Chrysostom gives an account of it, as being in his time kept after it. It is commonly supposed, that when St. Jude mentions certain persons, who were spots in the feasts of charity, ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις, verse 12, he means in the Christian love-feasts; though Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Whitby apprehend the reference in this passage is rather a custom of the Jews, who, on the evening of their Sabbath, had their κοινωνία, or communion, when the inhabitants of the same city met in a common place to eat together. However that be, all antiquity bears testimony to the reality of the Christian ἀγάπαι, or love-feasts. The most circumstantial account, says Dr. Townley, of the manner in which the ancient _agapæ_ were celebrated, is given by Tertullian, in his Apology,” written in the second century: Our supper,” says he, which you accuse of luxury, shows its reason in its very name, for it is called ἀγάπη, that is, _love_. Whatever charge we are at, it is gain to be at expense upon the account of piety. For we therewith relieve and refresh the poor. There is nothing vile or immodest committed in it. For we do not sit down before we have first offered up prayer to God. We eat only to satisfy hunger, and drink only so much as becomes modest persons. We fill ourselves in such a manner, as that we remember still that we are to worship God by night. We discourse as in the presence of God, knowing that he hears us. Then, after water to wash our hands, and lights brought in, every one is moved to sing some hymn to God, either out of Scripture, or, as he is able, of his own composing, and by this we judge whether he has observed the rules of temperance in drinking. Prayer again concludes our feast; and thence we depart, not to fight and quarrel; not to run about and abuse all we meet; not to give up ourselves to lascivious pastime; but to pursue the same care of modesty and chastity, as men that have fed at a supper of philosophy and discipline, rather than a corporeal feast.” Ignatius, in his epistle to the church of Smyrna, in the first century, affords us the additional information, that it was not lawful to baptize, or celebrate the love-feasts, without the bishop, or minister.” Lucian, the epicurean, has also a passage which seems to refer to the _agapæ_. He tells us that when Peregrinus, a Christian, was in prison, you might have seen, early in the morning, old women, some widows, and orphans, waiting at the prison. Their presidents bribed the guards, and lodged in the prison with him. Afterward (that is, in the evening) various suppers (that is, suppers consisting of various dishes, and various kinds of meat, brought thither by various persons of the company) were brought in, and they held their sacred conversations, ἴεροι λογοι, or their sacred discourses were delivered.” Pliny, in his celebrated epistle to Trajan, mentions the “_cibus promiscuus et innoxius_,”--“common and harmless meal” of the Christians, which they ate together after the celebration of the eucharist. This primitive practice, though under a simpler form, and more expressly religious, is retained in modern times, only by the Moravians, and by the Wesleyan Methodists.

See Gervais, Politische Geschichte Deutschlands unter der Regierung der Kaiser Heinrich V. und Lothar III, 1841-42; Jaffé, Geschichte des deutschen Reichs unter Lothar dem Sachsen, 1843.

About the middle of the 10th century (954-62) Edinburgh was abandoned by the Northumbrian Angles and occupied by Indulph, son of Constantine, king of the Scots. According to John of Wallingford and Roger of Wendover, Edgar the West Saxon king ceded in 966 Lothian to Kenneth III., son of Malcolm I., on condition that he should do homage for it and give pledges not to deprive the people of that region of their ancient customs, and that they should still retain the name and language of the Angles. This cession, which is not in the older chronicles, has been matter of controversy between Freeman (Norman Conquest, i., note B, p. 610), y r ho accepts the statement, and E. W. Robertson (Scotland under her Early Kings, i. 390) and Skene (Celtic Scotland, i. 370), who reject it upon what appear better grounds. But the dispute is of small importance, as it is admitted on the authority of Simeon of Durham that, whether or not it was then ceded on condition of homage, it was annexed to Scotland by conquest in 1018 in consequence of the victory at Carham by Malcolm the son of Kenneth over the Northumbrian earl Eadulf Ciudel,—“Hoc modo,” says Simeon writing before 1129, “Lodonium adjectum est regno Scotiae.” Canute and William the Conqueror made temporary conquests of Scotland including Lothian, and homage of various kinds was rendered to them and other Norman monarchs, but there is no trace of any special homage for Lothian except in two dubious charters by Edgar to William Rufus, so that it seems certain that from the beginning of the 11th century it was an integral part of Scotland. Freeman, in his Historical Geography, styles it an English earldom, but it is never so called in any authentic record. While it was an integral part of Scotland its population was recognized as a distinct branch of the Scottish nation, and the men of Lothian are frequently separately named, as in the contemporary account of the Battle of the Standard (1138). It also retained its language, customs, and laws, which were those of the Angles of Northumbria. Although united in civil government to Scotland, Lothian, or at least many places in it, continued ecclesiastically subject to the see of Durham, which had succeeded that of Lindisfarne, until the beginning of the 12th century (Stubbs and Haddan, Concilia, ii. p. 161), but it then came under the bishop of St Andrews, and was divided into three rural deaneries, the Merse, Haddington, and Linlithgow, with an archdeacon of Lothian, who first distinctly appears under that name at the commencement of the 13th century.

The division of Scotland into shires was probably made by David I., and Lothian included the shires of Berwick or the Merse (the march or borderland, as English Mercia and Spanish Murcia), Roxburgh, and Edinburgh, which included the constabularies of Haddington and Linlithgow, afterwards erected into separate counties. Its principal burghs — Berwick, Roxburgh, and Edinburgh — formed along with Stirling the court of the four burghs, whose laws were collected by David I. (“Leges Quatuor Burgorum,” Act. Pari. Scot., i. 327), and whose meeting-place was Haddington, but the frequent occupation of Berwick and Roxburgh by the English caused Lanark and Linlithgowto be substituted, and the place of meeting to be changed to Stirling in 1368. The convention of royal burghs may be traced back to this court.

The independence of Scotland, including Lothian, though frequently disputed by the English sovereigns, was always maintained by the Scotch, except when surrendered by William the Lion as a prisoner by the treaty of Falaise 1174, cancelled by Richard I. in 1189. It was finally acknowledged by Edward I. in the treaty of Brigham, but after the death of the Maid of Norway this acknowledgment was repudiated, and it was only finally established by the war of independence, and definitely recognized in the treaty of Northampton in 1328.

By a singular but fortunate series of events, of which the first was the marriage of Malcolm Canmore with the Saxon princess Margaret, Lothian, the Anglian part of the Scottish kingdom, though its borderland, became its centre. Edinburgh, its chief town, was from that time a favourite residence of the court, and under the Stuart kings became the capital of the kingdom. Its language, the dialect of northern England, became the basis of the Lowland Scots, at first called Inglys or English, but afterwards Scotch, when Celtic, Erse, or Gaelic had ceased to be spoken in the lowland districts, in distinction from southern English. Its customary law, with additions prior to the war of independence of Norman feudal institutions from England, is the basis of those parts of the common law of Scotland which are not taken from Roman jurisprudence. And it was from Lothian that Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman civilization radiated to the remotest parts of the Highlands and Islands. (ae. μ.)