play of colours—blue, green, orange, purple or red; the colour in some specimens changing when the stone is viewed in different directions. This optical effect, known sometimes as “labradorescence,” seems due in some cases to the presence of minute laminae of certain minerals, like göthite or haematite, arranged parallel to the surface which reflects the colour; but in other cases it may be caused not so much by inclusions as by a delicate lamellar structure in the felspar. An aventurine effect is produced by the presence of microscopic enclosures. The original labradorite was found in the neighbourhood of Nain, notably in a lagoon about 50 m. inland, and in St Paul’s Island. Here it occurs with hypersthene, of a rich bronzy sheen, forming a coarse-grained norite. When wet, the stones are remarkably brilliant, and have been called by the natives “fire rocks.” Russia has also yielded chatoyant labradorite, especially near Kiev and in Finland; a fine blue labradorite has been brought from Queensland; and the mineral is also known in several localities in the United States, as at Keeseville, in Essex county, New York. The ornamental stone from south Norway, now largely used as a decorative material in architecture, owes its beauty to a felspar with a blue opalescence, often called labradorite, but really a kind of orthoclase which Professor W. C. Brögger has termed cryptoperthite, whilst the rock in which it occurs is an augite-syenite called by him laurvigite, from its chief locality, Laurvik in Norway. Common labradorite, without play of colour, is an important constituent of such rocks as gabbro, diorite, andesite, dolerite and basalt. (See Plagioclase.) Ejected crystals of labradorite are found on Monti Rossi, a double parasitic cone on Etna.
The term labradorite is unfortunately used also as a rock-name, having been applied by Fouqué and Lévy to a group of basic rocks rich in augite and poor in olivine. (F. W. R.*)
LABRADOR TEA, the popular name for a species of Ledum,
a small evergreen shrub growing in bogs and swamps in Greenland
and the more northern parts of North America. The leaves are
tough, densely covered with brown wool on the under face,
fragrant when crushed and have been used as a substitute for
tea. The plant is a member of the heath family (Ericaceae).
LABRUM (Lat. for “lip”), the large vessel of the warm bath
in the Roman thermae. These were cut out of great blocks of
marble and granite, and have generally an overhanging lip.
There is one in the Vatican of porphyry over 12 ft. in diameter.
The term labrum is used in zoology, of a lip or lip-like part; in
entomology it is applied specifically to the upper lip of an insect,
the lower lip being termed labium.
LA BRUYÈRE, JEAN DE (1645–1696), French essayist and
moralist, was born in Paris on the 16th of August 1645, and not,
as was once the common statement, at Dourdan (Seine-et-Oise)
in 1639. His family was of the middle class, and his reference
to a certain Geoffroy de la Bruyère, a crusader, is only a satirical
illustration of a method of self-ennoblement common in France
as in some other countries. Indeed he himself always signed the
name Delabruyère in one word, thus avowing his roture. His
progenitors, however, were of respectable position, and he could
trace them back at least as far as his great-grandfather, who had
been a strong Leaguer. La Bruyère’s own father was controller-general
of finance to the Hôtel de Ville. The son was educated
by the Oratorians and at the university of Orleans; he was
called to the bar, and in 1673 bought a post in the revenue
department at Caen, which gave the status of noblesse and a
certain income. In 1687 he sold this office. His predecessor in it
was a relation of Bossuet, and it is thought that the transaction
was the cause of La Bruyère’s introduction to the great orator.
Bossuet, who from the date of his own preceptorship of the
dauphin, was a kind of agent-general for tutorships in the royal
family, introduced him in 1684 to the household of the great
Condé, to whose grandson Henri Jules de Bourbon as well as
to that prince’s girl-bride Mlle de Nantes, one of Louis XIV.’s
natural children, La Bruyère became tutor. The rest of his life
was passed in the household of the prince or else at court, and
he seems to have profited by the inclination which all the Condé
family had for the society of men of letters. Very little is known
of the events of this part—or, indeed, of any part—of his life.
The impression derived from the few notices of him is of a silent,
observant, but somewhat awkward man, resembling in manners
Joseph Addison, whose master in literature La Bruyère undoubtedly
was. Yet despite the numerous enemies which his
book raised up for him, most of these notices are favourable—notably
that of Saint-Simon, an acute judge and one bitterly
prejudiced against roturiers generally. There is, however, a
curious passage in a letter from Boileau to Racine in which he
regrets that “nature has not made La Bruyère as agreeable as
he would like to be.” His Caractères appeared in 1688, and at
once, as Nicolas de Malezieu had predicted, brought him “bien
des lecteurs et bien des ennemis.” At the head of these were
Thomas Corneille, Fontenelle and Benserade, who were pretty
clearly aimed at in the book, as well as innumerable other
persons, men and women of letters as well as of society, on whom
the cap of La Bruyère’s fancy-portraits was fitted by manuscript
“keys” compiled by the scribblers of the day. The friendship
of Bossuet and still more the protection of the Condés sufficiently
defended the author, and he continued to insert fresh portraits
of his contemporaries in each new edition of his book, especially
in the 4th (1689). Those, however, whom he had attacked were
powerful in the Academy, and numerous defeats awaited La
Bruyère before he could make his way into that guarded hold.
He was defeated thrice in 1691, and on one memorable occasion
he had but seven votes, five of which were those of Bossuet,
Boileau, Racine, Pellisson and Bussy-Rabutin. It was not
till 1693 that he was elected, and even then an epigram, which,
considering his admitted insignificance in conversation, was not
of the worst, haesit lateri:—
“Quand la Bruyère se présente
Pourquoi faut il crier haro ?
Pour faire un nombre de quarante
Ne falloit il pas un zéro ?”
His unpopularity was, however, chiefly confined to the subjects of his sarcastic portraiture, and to the hack writers of the time, of whom he was wont to speak with a disdain only surpassed by that of Pope. His description of the Mercure galant as “immédiatement au dessous de rien” is the best-remembered specimen of these unwise attacks; and would of itself account for the enmity of the editors, Fontenelle and the younger Corneille. La Bruyère’s discourse of admission at the Academy, one of the best of its kind, was, like his admission itself, severely criticized, especially by the partisans of the “Moderns” in the “Ancient and Modern” quarrel. With the Caractères, the translation of Theophrastus, and a few letters, most of them addressed to the prince de Condé, it completes the list of his literary work, with the exception of a curious and much-disputed posthumous treatise. La Bruyère died very suddenly, and not long after his admission to the Academy. He is said to have been struck with dumbness in an assembly of his friends, and, being carried home to the Hôtel de Condé, to have expired of apoplexy a day or two afterwards, on the 10th of May 1696. It is not surprising that, considering the recent panic about poisoning, the bitter personal enmities which he had excited and the peculiar circumstances of his death, suspicions of foul play should have been entertained, but there was apparently no foundation for them. Two years after his death appeared certain Dialogues sur le Quiétisme, alleged to have been found among his papers incomplete, and to have been completed by the editor. As these dialogues are far inferior in literary merit to La Bruyère’s other works, their genuineness has been denied. But the straightforward and circumstantial account of their appearance given by this editor, the Abbé du Pin, a man of acknowledged probity, the intimacy of La Bruyère with Bossuet, whose views in his contest with Fénelon these dialogues are designed to further, and the entire absence, at so short a time after the alleged author’s death, of the least protest on the part of his friends and representatives, seem to be decisive in their favour.
Although it is permissible to doubt whether the value of the Caractères has not been somewhat exaggerated by traditional French criticism, they deserve beyond all question a high place.
