Leo VI., surnamed The Wise and The Philosopher, Byzantine emperor, 886–911. He was a weak-minded ruler, chiefly occupied with unimportant wars with barbarians and struggles with churchmen. The chief event of his reign was the capture of Thessalonica (904) by Mahommedan pirates (described in The Capture of Thessalonica by John Cameniata) under the renegade Leo of Tripolis. In Sicily and Lower Italy the imperial arms were unsuccessful, and the Bulgarian Symeon, who assumed the title of “Czar of the Bulgarians and autocrat of the Romaei” secured the independence of his church by the establishment of a patriarchate. Leo’s somewhat absurd surname may be explained by the facts that he “was less ignorant than the greater part of his contemporaries in church and state, that his education had been directed by the learned Photius, and that several books of profane and ecclesiastical science were composed by the pen, or in the name, of the imperial philosopher” (Gibbon). His works include seventeen Oracula, in iambic verse, on the destinies of future emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople; thirty-three Orations, chiefly on theological subjects (such as church festivals); Basilica, the completion of the digest of the laws of Justinian, begun by Basil I., the father of Leo; some epigrams in the Greek Anthology; an iambic lament on the melancholy condition of the empire; and some palindromic verses, curiously called καρκίνοι (crabs). The treatise on military tactics, attributed to him, is probably by Leo III., the Isaurian.
Complete edition in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, cvii.; for the literature of individual works see C. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (1897). (J. H. F.)
LEO, Brother (d. c. 1270), the favourite disciple, secretary and
confessor of St Francis of Assisi. The dates of his birth and of his
becoming a Franciscan are not known; but he was one of the
small group of most trusted companions of the saint during his
last years. After Francis’s death Leo took a leading part in the
opposition to Elias: he it was who broke in pieces the marble
box which Elias had set up for offertories for the completion of
the basilica at Assisi. For this Elias had him scourged, and this
outrage on St Francis’s dearest disciple consolidated the opposition
to Elias and brought about his deposition. Leo was the
leader in the early stages of the struggle in the order for the
maintenance of St Francis’s ideas on strict poverty, and the chief
inspirer of the tradition of the Spirituals on St Francis’s life
and teaching. The claim that he wrote the so-called Speculum
perfectionis cannot be allowed, but portions of it no doubt go
back to him. A little volume of his writings has been published
by Lemmeus (Scripta Iratris Leonis, 1901). Leo assisted at
St Clara’s deathbed, 1253; after suffering many persecutions
from the dominant party in the order he died at the Portiuncula
in extreme old age.
All that is known concerning him is collected by Paul Sabatier in the “Introduction” to the Speculum perfectionis (1898). See St Francis and Franciscans. (E. C. B.)
LEO, HEINRICH (1799–1878), German historian, was born
at Rudolstadt on the 19th of March 1799, his father being
chaplain to the garrison there. His family, not of Italian origin—as
he himself was inclined to believe on the strength of family
tradition—but established in Lower Saxony so early as the
16th century, was typical of the German upper middle classes,
and this fact, together with the strongly religious atmosphere
in which he was brought up and his early enthusiasm for nature,
largely determined the bent of his mind. The taste for historical
study was, moreover, early instilled into him by the eminent
philologist Karl Wilhelm Göttling (1793–1869), who in 1816
became a master at the Rudolstadt gymnasium. From 1816
to 1819 Leo studied at the universities of Breslau, Jena and
Göttingen, devoting himself more especially to history, philology
and theology. At this time the universities were still agitated
by the Liberal and patriotic aspirations aroused by the War of
Liberation; at Breslau Leo fell under the influence of Jahn, and
joined the political gymnastic association (Turnverein); at Jena
he attached himself to the radical wing of the German Burschenschaft,
the so-called “Black Band,” under the leadership of Karl
Follen. The murder of Kotzebue by Karl Sand, however,
shocked him out of his extreme revolutionary views, and from
this time he tended, under the influence of the writings of Hamann
and Herder, more and more in the direction of conservatism
and romanticism, until at last he ended, in a mood almost of
pessimism, by attaching himself to the extreme right wing of the
forces of reaction. So early as April 1819, at Göttingen, he had
fallen under the influence of Karl Ludwig von Haller’s Handbuch
der allgemeinen Staatenkunde (1808), a text-book of the counter-Revolution.
On the 11th of May 1820 he took his doctor’s
degree; in the same year he qualified as Privatdozent at the
university of Erlangen. For this latter purpose he had chosen
as his thesis the constitution of the free Lombard cities in the
middle ages, the province in which he was destined to do most
for the scientific study of history. His interest in it was greatly
stimulated by a journey to Italy in 1823; in 1824 he returned
to the subject, and, as the result, published in five volumes a
history of the Italian states (1829–1832). Meanwhile he had
been established (1822–1827) as Dozent at Berlin, where he came
in contact with the leaders of German thought and was somewhat
spoilt by the flattering attentions of the highest Prussian society.
Here, too, it was that Hegel’s philosophy of history made a deep
impression upon him. It was at Halle, however, where he
remained for forty years (1828–1868), that he acquired his fame
as an academical teacher. His wonderful power of exposition,
aided by a remarkable memory, is attested by the most various
witnesses. In 1830 he became ordinary professor.
In addition to his lecturing, Leo found time for much literary and political work. He collaborated in the Jahrbücher für Wissenschaftliche Kritik from its foundation in 1827 until the publication was stopped in 1846. As a critic of independent views he won the approval of Goethe; on the other hand, he fell into violent controversy with Ranke about questions connected with Italian history. Up to the revolutionary year 1830 his religious views had remained strongly tinged with rationalism, Hegel remaining his guide in religion as in practical politics and the treatment of history. It was not till 1838 that Leo’s polemical work Die Hegelingen proclaimed his breach with the radical developments of the philosopher’s later disciples; a breach which developed into opposition to the philosopher himself. Under the impression of the July revolution in Paris and of the orthodox and pietistic influences at Halle, Leo’s political convictions were henceforth dominated by reactionary principles. As a friend of the Prussian “Camarilla” and of King Frederick William IV. he collaborated especially in the high conservative Politisches Wochenblatt, which first appeared in 1831, as well as in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, the Kreuzzeitung and the Volksblatt für Stadt und Land. In all this his critics scented an inclination towards Catholicism; and Leo did actually glorify the counter-Reformation, e.g. in his History of the Netherlands (2 vols. 1832–1835). His other historical works also, notably his Universalgeschichte (6 vols., 1835–1844), display a very one-sided point of view. When, however, in connexion with the quarrel about the archbishopric of Cologne (1837), political Catholicism raised its head menacingly, Leo turned against it with extreme violence in his open letter (1838) to Goerres, its foremost champion. On the other hand, he took a lively part in the politico-religious controversies within the fold of Prussian Protestantism.
Leo was by nature highly excitable and almost insanely passionate, though at the same time strictly honourable, unselfish, and in private intercourse even gentle. During the last year of his life his mind suffered rapid decay, of which signs had been apparent so early as 1868. He died at Halle on the 24th of April 1878. In addition to the works already mentioned, he left behind an account of his early life (Meine Jugendzeit, Gotha, 1880) which is of interest.
See Lord Acton, English Historical Review, i. (1886); H. Haupt, Karl Follen und die Giessener Schwarzen (Giessen, 1907); W. Herbst, Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter, Bd. 3; P. Krägelin, H. Leo, vol. i. (1779–1844) (Leipzig, 1908); P. Kraus, Allgemeine Konservative Monatsschrift, Bd. 50 u. 51; R. M. Meyer, Gestalten und Probleme (1904); W. Schrader, Geschichte der Friedrichs-Universität in Halle (Berlin, 1894); C. Varrentrapp, Historische Zeitschrift, Bd. 92; F. X. Wegele, Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Bd. 18 (1883);
