VOLUME IX SLICE III Electrostatics to Engis (continued 10)

In addition to the authorities cited in the text, see Lewis, Eminent Domain (2nd ed., Chicago, 1900); Mills, Eminent Domain (2nd ed., St Louis, 1888); Randolph, Eminent Domain in the United States (Boston, 1894).

(A. W. R.)

EMINESCU, MICHAIL (1849-1889), the greatest Rumanian poet of the 19th century, was born on the 20th of December in Ipateshti near Botoshani, in the north of Moldavia. He was of Turco-Tatar origin, and his surname was originally Emin; this was changed to Eminovich and finally to the Rumanian form Eminescu. He was educated for a time in Czernowitz, and then entered the civil service. In 1864 he resumed his studies in Transylvania, but soon joined a roving theatrical company where he played in turn the rôles of actor, prompter and stage-manager. After a few years he went to Vienna, Jena and Berlin, where he attended lectures, especially on philosophy. In 1874 he was appointed school inspector and librarian at the university of Jassy, but was soon turned out through the change of government, and took charge, as editor in chief, of the Conservative paper Timpul (Times). In 1883 he had the first attack of the insanity hereditary in his family, and in 1889 he died in a private institution in Bucharest. In 1870 his great poetical talent was revealed by two contributions to the Convorbiri literare, the organ of the Junimist party in Jassy; these were the poems “Venera şi Madona” and “Epigonii.” Other poems followed and soon established his claim to be the first among the modern poets of his country. He was thoroughly acquainted with the chronicles of the past, had a complete mastery of the Rumanian language, and was a lover and admirer of Rumanian popular poetry. Influenced by these studies and by the philosophy of Schopenhauer, he introduced a new spirit into Rumanian poetry. Mystically inclined and himself of a melancholy disposition, he lived in the glory of the medieval Rumanian past; stifled by the artificiality of the world around him, he rebelled against the conventionality of society and his surroundings. In inimitable language he denounced the vileness of the present and painted in glowing pictures the heroism of the past; he also surprised nature in its primitive beauty, and he gave expression to stirring emotions in lyrics couched in the language and metre of popular poetry. He further proved himself an unsurpassed master in satire. Over all his poetry hangs a cloud of sadness, the sense of coming doom. Simplicity of language, masterly handling of rhyme and verse, deep thought and plastic expression made Eminescu the creator of a school of poetry which dominated the thought of Rumania and the expression of Rumanian writers and poets at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th.

Five editions of his collected poems appeared after 1890. Some of them were translated into German by “Carmen Sylva” and Mite Kremnitz, and others have also been translated into several other languages. Eminescu also wrote two short novels, real poems in prose (Jassy, 1890).

(M. G.)

EMIN PASHA [Eduard Schnitzer] (1840-1892), German traveller, administrator and naturalist, was the son of Ludwig Schnitzer, a merchant of Oppeln in Silesia, and was born in Oppeln on the 28th of March 1840. He was educated at the universities of Breslau, Berlin and Königsberg, and took the degree of M.D. at Berlin. He displayed an early predilection for zoology and ornithology, and in later life became a skilled and enthusiastic collector, particularly of African plants and birds. When he was four-and-twenty he determined to seek his fortunes abroad, and made his way to Turkey, where, after practising medicine on his own account for a short time, he was appointed (in 1865) quarantine medical officer at Antivari. The duties of the post were not heavy, and allowed him leisure for a diligent study of Turkish, Arabic and Persian. From 1870 to 1874 he was in the service of the governor of northern Albania, had adopted a Turkish name (though not that by which he afterwards became so widely known), and was practically naturalized as a Turk.

After a visit home in 1875 he went to Cairo, and then to Khartum, in the hope of an opportunity for travelling in the interior of Africa. This came to him in the following year, when General Charles George Gordon, who had recently succeeded Sir Samuel Baker as governor of the equatorial provinces of Egypt, invited Schnitzer, who was now known as “Emin Effendi,” to join him at Lado on the upper Nile. Although nominally Gordon’s medical officer, Emin was soon entrusted with political missions of some importance to Uganda and Unyoro. In these he acquitted himself so well that when, in 1878, Gordon’s successor at Lado was deprived of his office on account of malpractices (Gordon himself having been made governor-general of the Sudan), Emin was chosen to fill the post of governor of the Equatorial Province (i.e. the old equatorial provinces minus the Bahr-el-Ghazal) and given the title of “bey.” He proved an energetic and enterprising governor; indeed, his enterprise on more than one occasion brought him into conflict with Gordon, who eventually decided to remove Emin to Suakin. Before the change could be effected, however, Gordon resigned his post in the Sudan, and his successor revoked the order.

The next three or four years were employed by Emin in various journeys through his province, and in the initiation of schemes for its development, until in 1882, on his return from a visit to Khartum, he became aware that the Mahdist rising, which had originated in Kordofan, was spreading southward. The effect of the rising was, of course, more markedly felt in Emin’s province after the abandonment of the Sudan by the Egyptian government in 1884. He was obliged to give up several of his stations in face of the Mahdist advance, and ultimately to retire from Lado, which had been his capital, to Wadelai. This last step followed upon his receipt of a letter from Nubar Pasha, informing him that it was impossible for the Egyptian government to send him help, and that he must stay in his province or retire towards the coast as best he could. Emin (who about this time was raised to the rank of pasha) had some thoughts of a retreat to Zanzibar, but decided to remain where he was and endeavour to hold his own. To this end he carried on protracted negotiations with neighbouring native potentates. When, in 1887, (Sir) H.M. Stanley’s expedition was on its way to relieve him, it is clear from Emin’s diary that he had no wish to leave his province, even if relieved. He had done good work there, and established a position which he believed himself able to maintain. He hoped, however, that the presence of Stanley’s force, when it came, would strengthen his position; but the condition of the relieving party, when it arrived in April 1888, did not seem to Emin to promise this. Stanley’s proposal to Emin, as stated in the latter’s diary, was that Emin should either remain as governor-general on behalf of the king of the Belgians, or establish himself on Victoria Nyanza on behalf of a group of English merchants who wished to start an enterprise in Africa on the model of the East India Company. After much hesitation, and prompted by a growing disaffection amongst the natives (owing, as he maintained, to his loss of prestige after the arrival of Stanley’s force), Emin decided to accompany Stanley to the coast, where the expedition arrived in December 1889. Unfortunately, on the evening of a reception dinner given in his honour, Emin met with an accident which resulted in fracture of the skull. Careful nursing gradually restored him to health, and on his convalescence he resolutely maintained his decision to remain in Africa, and, if possible, to work there in future on behalf of the German government. The seal was definitely set upon this decision by his formal engagement on behalf of his native country, early in 1890. Preparations for a new expedition into the interior were set on foot, and meanwhile Emin was honoured in various ways by learned societies in Germany and elsewhere.

The object of the new expedition was (to quote Emin’s instructions) “to secure on behalf of Germany the territories situated south of and along Victoria Nyanza up to Albert Nyanza,” and to “make known to the population there that they were placed under German supremacy and protection, and to break or undermine Arab influence as far as possible.” The force, which was well equipped, started at the end of April 1890. But before it had penetrated far inland the political reasons for sending the expedition vanished with the signature, on the 1st of July 1890, of the Anglo-German agreement defining the spheres of influence of the two nations, an agreement which excluded the Albert Nyanza region from the German sphere. For a time things went well enough with the expedition; Emin occupied the important town of Tabora on the route from the coast to Tanganyika and established the post of Bukoba on Victoria Nyanza, but by degrees ill-fortune clouded its prospects. Difficulties on the route; dissensions between Emin and the authorities in German East Africa, and misunderstandings on the part of both; epidemics of disease in Emin’s force, followed by a growing spirit of mutiny among his native followers; an illness of a painful nature which attacked him—all these gradually undermined Emin’s courage, and his diaries at the close of 1891 reflect a gloomy and almost hopeless spirit. In May that year he had crossed into the Congo State by the south shore of Albert Edward Nyanza, and many months were spent on the borders of the great Congo Forest and in the Undusuma country south-west of Albert Nyanza, breaking ground new to Europeans. In December 1891 he sent off his companion, Dr Stuhlmann, with the bulk of the caravan, on the way back to the east coast. Emin remained behind with the sick, and with a very reduced following left the lake district in March 1892 for the Congo river. On reaching Ipoto on the Ituri he came within the region of the Arab slave raiders and ivory hunters, in whose company he at times travelled. These gentry were incensed against Emin for the energetic way in which he had dealt with their comrades while in German territory, and against Europeans generally by the campaign for their suppression begun by the Congo State. At the instigation of one of these Arabs Emin was murdered on the 23rd or 24th of October 1892 at Kinena, a place about 80 m. E.S.E. of Stanley Falls.

See Emin Pasha, his Life and Work, by Georg Schweitzer, with introduction by R.W. Felkin (2 vols., London, 1898); Emin Pasha in Central Africa (London, 1888), a collection of Emin’s papers contributed to scientific journals; and Mit Emin Pascha ins Herz von Afrika (Berlin, 1894), by Dr Franz Stuhlmann. Major G. Casati (1838-1902), an Italian officer who spent several years with Emin, and accompanied him and Stanley to the coast, narrated his experiences in Dieci anni in Equatoria (English edition, Ten Years in Equatoria and the Return with Emin Pasha, London, 1891).

EMLYN, THOMAS (1663-1741), English nonconformist divine, was born at Stamford, Lincolnshire. He served as chaplain to the presbyterian Letitia, countess of Donegal, and then to Sir Robert Rich, afterwards (1691) becoming colleague to Joseph Boyse, presbyterian minister in Dublin. From this office he was virtually dismissed on his own confession of unitarianism, and for publishing An Humble Inquiry into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ (1702) was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and a fine of £1000. Thanks to the intervention of Boyse he was released in 1705 on payment of £90. He is said to have been the first English preacher definitely to describe himself as “unitarian,” and writes in his diary, “I thank God that He did not call me to this lot of suffering till I had arrived at maturity of judgment and firmness of resolution, and that He did not desert me when my friends did. He never let me be so cast down as to renounce the truth or to waver in my faith.” Of Christ he writes, “We may regard with fervent gratitude so great a benefactor, but our esteem and rational love must ascend higher and not rest till it centre in his God and ours.” Emlyn preached a good deal in Paul’s Alley, Barbican, in his later years, and died in London in 1741.

EMMANUEL, or Immanuel, a Hebrew symbolical proper name, meaning “God (is) with us.” When in 734-733 B.C. Ahaz, king of Judah, alarmed at the preparations made against him by the Syro-Ephraimitish alliance, was inclined to seek aid from Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, the prophet Isaiah endeavoured to allay his fear by telling him that the danger would pass away, and as a sign from Yahweh that this should be so, any young woman who should within the year bear a son, might call his name Immanuel in token of the divine protection accorded to Judah. For before the infant should come to even the immature intelligence of childhood the lands of the foe would be laid waste (Isaiah vii. 14-16). For other interpretations, especially as regards the mother, see Ency. Bib. col. 2162-3, and the commentaries. In the post-exilic period the historical meaning of the passage was forgotten, and a new significance was given to it in accordance with the gradually developing eschatological doctrine. This new interpretation finds expression in Matt. i. 23, where the name is applied to Jesus as the Messiah. At the close of Isaiah viii. 8 for “of thy land, O Immanuel,” we should probably read “of the land, for God is with us.” The three passages quoted are the only instances where this word occurs in Scripture; it is frequent in hymns and devotional literature as a title of Jesus Christ.

EMMANUEL PHILIBERT (1528-1580), duke of Savoy, son of Charles III. and Beatrice of Portugal, one of the most renowned princes of the later Renaissance, was born on the 8th of July 1528. Charles, after trying in vain to remain neutral in the wars between France and the emperor Charles V., had been forced to side with the latter, whereupon his duchy was overrun with foreign soldiery and became the battlefield of the rival armies. Prince Emmanuel took service with the emperor in 1545 and distinguished himself in Germany, France and the Low Countries. On the death of his father in 1553 he succeeded to the title, little more than an empty one, and continued in the emperor’s service. Having been refused the command of the imperial troops in Piedmont, he tried in vain to negotiate a separate peace with France; but in 1556 France and Spain concluded a five years’ truce, by which each was to retain what it then occupied. This would have been the end of Savoy, but within a year the two powers were again at war. The chief events of the campaign were the successful resistance of Cuneo, held for the duke by Count Luserna, and the victory of St Quentin (1557), won by Emmanuel Philibert himself against the French. At last in 1558 the powers agreed to an armistice, and in 1559 the peace of Cateau-Cambrésis was made, by which Emmanuel regained his duchy, but on onerous terms, for France was to occupy several Piedmontese fortresses, including Turin and Pinerolo, for not more than three years, and a marriage was arranged between the duke and Margaret, duchess of Berry, sister of the French king; while Spain was to garrison Asti and Vercelli (afterwards exchanged for Santhià) until France evacuated the above-mentioned fortresses. The duke’s marriage took place in Paris a few months later; and after the French evacuation he re-entered his dominions amidst the rejoicings of the people. The condition of Piedmont at that time was deplorable; for wars, the exactions and devastations of the foreign soldiery, and religious antagonism between Catholics and Protestants had wrought terrible havoc. “Uncultivated,” wrote the Venetian ambassador, quoted by E. Ricotti, “no citizens in the cities, neither man nor beast in the fields, all the land forest-clad and wild; one sees no houses, for most of them are burnt, and of nearly all the castles only the walls are visible; of the inhabitants, once so numerous, some have died of the plague or of hunger, some by the sword, and some have fled elsewhere preferring to beg their bread abroad rather than support misery at home which is worse than death.” There was no army, the administration was chaotic, and the finances were in a hopeless state. The duke set to work to put his house in order, and inaugurated a series of useful reforms, ably assisted by his minister, Niccolò Balbo. But progress was slow, and was accompanied by measures which abolished the states general, the last survival of feudal liberties. Savoy, following the tendency of the other states of Europe at that time, became thenceforth an absolute monarchy, but without that transformation the achievement of complete independence from foreign powers would have been impossible.

One of the first questions with which he had to deal was the religious difficulty. The inhabitants of the Pellice and Chisone valleys had long professed a primitive form of Christianity which the orthodox regarded as heretical, and had been subject to numerous persecutions in consequence (see Waldenses). At the time of the Reformation they had gone over to Protestantism, and during the wars of the 16th century the new religion made great progress in Piedmont. The duke as a devout Catholic desired to purge the state of heresy, and initiated repressive measures against the Waldenses, but after some severe and not very successful fighting he ended by allowing them a measure of religious liberty in those valleys (1561). At the pope’s instigation he recommenced persecution some years later, but his duchess and some German princes pleaded successfully in favour of the Protestants. He next turned his attention to getting rid of the French garrisons; the negotiations proved long and troublesome, but in December 1562 the French departed on payment of 100,000 scudi, retaining only Pinerolo and Savigliano, and Turin became the capital once more. There remained the Bernese, who had occupied some of the duke’s territories in Savoy and Vaud, and in Geneva, over which he claimed certain rights. With Bern he made a compromise, regaining Gex, the Chablais, and the Genevois, on condition that Protestantism should be tolerated there, but he renounced Vaud and some other districts (1566). Disagreements with the Valais were settled in a similar way in 1569; but the Genevans refused to recognize Savoyard suzerainty. Emmanuel reformed the currency, reorganized justice, prepared the way for the emancipation of the serfs, raised the standing army to 25,000 men, and fortified the frontiers, ostensibly against Huguenot raids, but in reality from fear of France. On the death of Charles IX. of France in 1574 the new king, Henry III., passed through Piedmont on his way from Poland; Emmanuel gave him a magnificent reception, and obtained from him a promise that Pinerolo and Savigliano should be evacuated, which was carried out at the end of the year. Philip of Spain was likewise induced to evacuate Asti and Santhià in 1575. Thus, after being more or less under foreign occupation for 39 years, the duchy was at last free. The duke rounded off his dominions by the purchase of Tenda and Oneglia, which increased his seaboard, and the last years of his life were spent in fruitless negotiations to obtain Monferrato, held by the Gonzagas under Spanish protection, and Saluzzo, which was a French fief. He died on the 30th of August 1580, and was succeeded by his son Charles Emmanuel I. As a statesman Emmanuel Philibert was able, business-like and energetic; but he has been criticized for his duplicity, although in this respect he was no worse than most other European princes, whose ends were far more questionable. He was autocratic, but just and very patriotic. During his reign the duchy, which had been more than half French, became predominantly Italian. By diplomacy, which, although he was a capable and brave soldier, he preferred to war, he succeeded in freeing his country, and converting it from a ruined and divided land into a respectable independent power of the second rank, and, after Venice, the best-governed state in Italy.

The most accurate biography of Emmanuel Philibert is contained in E. Ricotti’s Storia della monarchia Piemontese, vol. ii. (Florence, 1861), which is well done and based on documents; cf. Claretta’s La Successione di Emanuele Filiberto (Turin, 1884).

EMMAUS, the name of two places in Palestine.

1. A village mentioned by Luke (xxiv. 13), without any indication of direction, as being 60 stadia (almost 7 m.), or according to some MSS.1 160 stadia, from Jerusalem. Its identification is a matter of mere guesswork: it has been sought at (a) Emmaus-Nicopolis (see 2 below), distant 176 stadia from Jerusalem; (b) Kuryet el-‘Enab, distant 66 stadia, on the carriage road to Jaffa; (c) Kulonieh, distant 36 stadia, on the same road; (d) el-Kubeibeh, distant 63 stadia, on the Roman road to Lydda; (e) ’Urtas, distant 60 stadia; and (f) Khurbet el-Khamasa, distant 86 stadia, on the Roman road to Eleutheropolis. Of these, el-Kubeibeh or ‘Urtas seems the most probable, though many favour Kulonieh because of its nearness to Bet Mizza, in which name there is similarity with Emmaus, and because of a reading (30 stadia) in Josephus.

2. Emmaus-Nicopolis, now ‘Amwās, a town on the maritime plain, and a place of importance during the Maccabaean and Jewish wars. Near it Judas Maccabaeus defeated Gorgias in 164 B.C., and Vespasian established a fortified camp in A.D. 69. It was afterwards rebuilt and named Nicopolis, and became an episcopal see. It was also noted for a healing spring.

1 Including Codex א. But this distance is too great for the conditions of Luke’s narrative and the reading (160) is evidently an attempt to harmonize with the traditional identification of Emmaus-Nicopolis held by Eusebius and Jerome. For a curious reading in three old Latin MSS, which makes Emmaus the name of the second traveller on the journey, see Expos. Times, xiii. 429, 477, 561.

EMMENDINGEN, a town of Germany, in the grand-duchy of Baden, close to the Black Forest, on the Elz and the main line of railway Mannheim-Constance. Pop. 6200. It has a Protestant church with a fine spire, a Roman Catholic church, a handsome town-hall, an old castle (now a hospital), once the residence of the counts of Hochberg, spinning mills, tanneries and manufactures of photographic instruments, paper, machinery and cigars. There is also a considerable trade in timber and cattle. Here the author Johann Georg Schlosser (1739-1799), the husband of Goethe’s sister Cornelia (who died in 1777 and is interred in the old graveyard), was Oberamtmann (bailiff) for a few years.

Emmendingen was formerly the seat of the counts of Hochberg, a cadet branch of the margraves of Baden. In 1418 it received market rights from the emperor, and in 1590 was raised to the status of a town, and walled, by Margrave Jacob III.

EMMERICH (the ancient Embrica), a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, on the right bank of the Rhine and the railway from Cologne to Amsterdam, 5 m. N.E. of Cleves. Pop. (1905) 12,578. It has a considerable shipping trade, and manufactories of tobacco and cigars, chocolate, margarine, oil, chemicals, brushes, vinegar, soap, guano and perfumery. There are also iron foundries and machine factories. The old minster church, built in the middle of the 11th century, contains some fine choir stalls.

Emmerich, formerly called Embrika and Emrik, originally a Roman colony, is mentioned in records so early as the 7th century. St Willibrord founded a monastery and church here. In 1233 the place came into the possession of the dukes of Gelderland and received the status of a town in 1247. In 1371 it fell to the duchy of Cleves, and passed with it in 1609 to Brandenburg. The town joined the Hanseatic League in 1407. In 1794 it was bombarded by the French under General Vandamme, and in 1806 it was assigned to the grand-duchy of Berg. It passed into the possession of Prussia in 1815.

See A. Dederich, Annalen der Stadt Emmerich (Emmerich, 1867).

EMMET, ROBERT (1778-1803), Irish rebel, youngest son of Robert Emmet, physician to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, was born in Dublin in 1778, and entered Trinity College in October 1793, where he had a distinguished academic career, showing special aptitude for mathematics and chemistry, and acquiring a reputation as an orator. Without taking a degree he removed his name from the college books in April 1798, as a protest against the inquisitorial examination of the political views of the students conducted by Lord Clare as chancellor of the university. Thus cut off from entering a learned profession, he turned towards political intrigue, being already to some extent in the secrets of the United Irishmen, of whom his elder brother Thomas Addis Emmet (see below) was one of the most prominent. In April 1799 a warrant was issued for his arrest, but was not executed; and in 1800 and the following year he travelled on the continent of Europe, where he entered into relations with the leaders of the United Irishmen, exiled since the rebellion of 1798, who were planning a fresh outbreak in Ireland in expectation of support from France. Emmet went to Paris in October 1802, where he had an interview with Bonaparte which convinced him that the peace of Amiens would be of short duration and that a French invasion of England might be looked for in August 1803. The councils of the conspirators were weakened by divided opinions as to the ultimate aim of their policy; and no clearly thought-out scheme of operations appears to have been arrived at when Emmet left Paris for Ireland in October 1802. Those in his confidence afterwards denied that Emmet was himself the originator of the plan on which he acted; and several of the ablest of the United Irishmen held aloof, believing the project to be impracticable. Among the latter was Lord Cloncurry, at one time on the executive of the United Irishmen, with whom Emmet dined the night before he left Paris, and to whom he spoke of his plans with intense enthusiasm and excitement. Emmet’s lack of discretion was shown by his revealing his intentions in detail to an Englishman named Lawrence, resident near Honfleur, with whom he sought shelter when travelling on foot on his way to Ireland. Arriving in Dublin at the end of October he received information to the effect that seventeen counties were ready to take up arms if a successful effort were made in Dublin. For some time he remained concealed in his father’s house near Miltown, making his preparations. A large number of pikes were collected and stored in Dublin during the spring of 1803, but fire-arms and ammunition were not plentiful.

The probability of a French invasion in August was increased by the renewal of the war in May, Emmet’s brother Thomas being then in Paris in communication with Talleyrand and Bonaparte. But a discovery by the government of concealed arms, and an explosion at one of Emmet’s depôts in Patrick Street on the 16th of July, necessitated immediate action, and the 23rd of that month was accordingly fixed for the projected rising. An elaborate plan of operations, which he described in detail in a letter to his brother after his arrest, had been prepared by Emmet, the leading feature of which was a simultaneous attack on the castle, the Pigeon House and the artillery barracks at Island bridge; while bodies of insurgents from the neighbouring counties were to march on the capital. But the whole scheme miscarried. Some of Emmet’s bolder proposals, such as a plan for capturing the commander-in-chief, were vetoed by the timidity of his associates, none of whom were men of any ability. On the 23rd of July all was confusion at the depôts, and the leaders were divided as to the course to be pursued; orders were not obeyed; a trusted messenger despatched for arms absconded with the money committed to him to pay for them; treachery, quite unsuspected by Emmet, honeycombed the conspiracy; the Wicklow contingent failed to appear; the Kildare men turned back on hearing that the rising had been postponed; a signal expected by a contingent at the Broadstone was never given. In this hopeless state of affairs a false report reached Emmet at one of his depôts at nine o’clock in the evening that the military were approaching. Without taking any step to verify it, Emmet put on a green and white uniform and placed himself at the head of some eighty men, who marched towards the castle, being joined in the streets by a second body of about equal strength. None of these insurgents had any discipline, and many of them were drunk. Lord Kilwarden, proceeding to a hastily summoned meeting of the privy council, was dragged from his carriage by this rabble and murdered, together with his nephew Richard Wolfe; his daughter who accompanied him being conveyed to safety by Emmet himself. Emmet, now seeing that the rising had become a mere street brawl, made his escape; a detachment of soldiers quickly dispersed his followers.

After hiding for some days in the Wicklow mountains Emmet repaired to the house of a Mrs Palmer at Harold’s Cross, in order to be near the residence of John Philpot Curran (q.v.), to whose daughter Sarah he had for some time been secretly attached, and with whom he had carried on a voluminous correspondence, afterwards seized by the authorities at her father’s house. Attempting without success to persuade this lady to fly with him to America, Emmet lingered in the neighbourhood till the 25th of August, when he was apprehended by Major H.C. Sirr, the same officer who had captured Lord Edward Fitzgerald in 1798. At his trial he was defended and betrayed by the infamous Leonard MacNally (q.v.), and was convicted of treason; and after delivering an eloquent speech from the dock, was hanged on the 20th of September 1803.

By the universal testimony of his friends, Robert Emmet was a youth of modest character, pure motives and winning personality. But he was entirely lacking in practical statesmanship. Brought up in a revolutionary atmosphere, his enthusiasm was uncontrolled by judgment. Thomas Moore, who warmly eulogizes Emmet, with whom he was a student at Trinity College, records that one day when he was playing on the piano the melody “Let Erin remember,” Emmet started up exclaiming passionately, “Oh, that I were at the head of 20,000 men marching to that air!” He had no knowledge of the world or of men; he trusted every one with child-like simplicity; except personal courage he had none of the qualities essential to leadership in such an enterprise as armed rebellion. The romance of his love affair with Sarah Curran—who afterwards married Robert Henry Sturgeon, an officer distinguished in the Peninsular War—has cast a glamour over the memory of Robert Emmet; and it inspired Thomas Moore’s well-known songs, “She is far from the land where her young hero sleeps,” and “Oh, breathe not his name”; it is also the subject of Washington Irving’s “The Broken Heart.” Emmet was short and slight in figure; his face was marked by smallpox, and he was described in 1803 for the purpose of identification as being “of an ugly, sour countenance and dirty brown complexion.” A few poems by Emmet of little merit are appended to Madden’s biography.

See R.R. Madden, The United Irishmen, their Lives and Times (2nd ed. 4 vols., Dublin, 1858-1860); Charles Phillips, Recollections of Curran and Some of his Contemporaries (2nd ed., London, 1822); Henry Grattan, Memoirs of the Life and Times of the Right Hon. H. Grattan (5 vols., London, 1839-1846); W.H. Maxwell, History of the Irish Rebellion in 1798; with Memoirs of the Union and Emmet’s Insurrection in 1803 (London, 1845); W.H. Curran, Life of J.P. Curran (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1822); Thomas Moore, Life and Death of Lord Edward Fitzgerald (2 vols. 3rd ed., London, 1832); and Memoirs, Journals and Correspondence of Thomas Moore, edited by Lord John Russell (8 vols., London, 1853-1856).

(R. J. M.)

EMMET, THOMAS ADDIS (1764-1827), Irish lawyer and politician, second son of Robert Emmet, physician to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and elder brother of Robert Emmet (q.v.), the rebel, was born at Cork on the 24th of April 1764, and was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and at Edinburgh University, where he studied medicine and was a pupil of Dugald Stewart in philosophy. After visiting the chief medical schools on the continent, he returned to Ireland in 1788; but the sudden death of his elder brother, Christopher Temple Emmet (1761-1788), a barrister of some distinction, induced him to follow the advice of Sir James Mackintosh to forsake medicine for the law as a profession. He was called to the Irish bar in 1790, and quickly obtained a practice, principally as counsel for prisoners charged with political offences, and became the legal adviser of the leading United Irishmen. When the Dublin corporation issued a declaration of Protestant ascendancy in 1792, the counter-manifesto of the United Irishmen was drawn up by Emmet; and in 1795 he took the oath of the society in open court, becoming secretary in the same year and a member of the executive in 1797. Although Grattan had a profound contempt for Emmet’s political understanding, describing him as a quack in politics who set up his own crude notions as settled rules, Emmet was among the more prudent of the United Irishmen on the eve of the rebellion. It was only when convinced that parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation were not to be obtained by constitutional methods, that he reluctantly engaged in treasonable conspiracy; and in opposition to bolder spirits like Lord Edward Fitzgerald, he discountenanced the taking up of arms until help should be obtained from France. Though not among those taken at the house of Oliver Bond on the 12th of March 1798 (see Fitzgerald, Lord Edward), he was arrested about the same time, and he was one of the leaders who after the rebellion were imprisoned at Fort George till 1802. Being then released, he went to Brussels, where he was visited by his brother Robert in October of that year; and he was in the secrets of those who were preparing for a fresh rising in Ireland in conjunction with French aid. After the failure of Robert Emmet’s rising in July 1803, the news of which reached him in Paris, where he was in communication with Bonaparte, he emigrated to the United States. Joining the New York bar he obtained a lucrative practice and in 1812-13 was attorney-general of New York; his abilities and success being such that Judge Story declared him to be “by universal consent in the first rank of American advocates.” He died while conducting a case in court on the 14th of November 1827. Thomas Emmet married, in 1791, Jane, daughter of the Rev. John Patten, of Clonmel.

See authorities under Emmet, Robert; also Alfred Webb, Compendium of Irish Biography (Dublin, 1878); C.S. Haynes, Memoirs of Thomas Addis Emmet (London, 1829); Theobald Wolfe Tone, Memoirs, edited by W.T.W. Tone (2 vols., London, 1827); W.E.H. Lecky, Hist. of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, vol. iv. (Cabinet edition, 5 vols., London, 1892).

(R. J. M.)

EMMETT, DANIEL DECATUR (1815-1904), American songwriter, was born at Mount Vernon, Ohio. He started the “negro minstrel” performances, which from 1842 onwards became so popular in America and England, and he composed a number of songs which had a great temporary vogue. He is remembered particularly as the writer of the famous Southern war-song “Dixie,” which he composed in 1859.

EMMITSBURG, a town in Frederick county, Maryland, U.S.A., 61 m. by rail W. by N. of Baltimore, and 1½ m. S. of the northern boundary of the state. Pop. (1900) 849; (1910) 1054. It is served by the Emmitsburg railway (7 m. long) to Rocky Ridge on the Western Maryland railway. The town is in a picturesque region on the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Two miles S.W. is Mount St. Mary’s College (Roman Catholic), founded in 1808 by the Rev. John du Bois (1764-1842)—its president until 1826, when he became bishop of New York—and chartered by the state in 1830. The Ecclesiastical Seminary of the college has been a great training school, and has been called the “Nursery of Bishops”; among its graduates have been Bishop Hughes, Cardinal McCloskey and Archbishop Corrigan. In 1908 the college had 25 instructors and 350 students, of whom 57 were in the Ecclesiastical Seminary, and 61 in the Minim Department. Half a mile S. of the town is St Joseph’s College and Academy (incorporated in 1816), for young women, which is conducted by the Sisters of Charity—this order was introduced into the United States at Emmitsburg by Mrs Elizabeth Ann Seton in 1809. The first settlement at Emmitsburg was made about 1773. It was at first called “Silver Fancy,” and then for a time was known as “Poplar Fields”; but in 1786 the present name was adopted in honour of William Emmitt, one of the original settlers. The town was incorporated in 1824.

EMMIUS, UBBO (1547-1625), Dutch historian and geographer, was born at Gretha in East Friesland on the 5th of December 1547. After studying at Rostock, he spent two years in Geneva, where he became intimate with Theodore Beza; and returning to the Netherlands was appointed the principal of a college at Norden, a position which he lost in 1587 because, as a Calvinist, he would not subscribe to the confession of Augsburg. Subsequently he was head of a college at Leer, and in 1594 became rector of the college at Groningen, and when in 1614 this college became a university he was chosen principal and professor of history and Greek, and by his wise guidance and his learning speedily raised the new university to a position of eminence. He was on friendly terms with Louis, count of Nassau; corresponded with many of the learned men of his time; and died at Groningen on the 9th of December 1625. He was twice married, and left a son and a daughter. The chief works of Emmius are: Rerum Frisicarum historiae decades, in six parts, a complete edition of which was published at Leiden in 1616; Opus chronologicum (Groningen, 1619); Vetus Graecia illustrata (Leiden, 1626); and Historia temporis nostri, which was first published at Groningen in 1732. An account of his life, written by Nicholas Mulerius, was published, with the lives of other professors of Groningen, at Groningen in 1638.

See N.G. van Kampen, Geschiedenis der letteren en wetenschappen in de Nederlanden (The Hague, 1821-1826).

EMMONS, EBENEZER (1800-1863), American geologist, was born at Middlefield, Massachusetts, on the 16th of May 1800. He studied medicine at Albany, and after taking his degree practised for some years in Berkshire county. His interest in geology was kindled in early life, and in 1824 he had assisted Prof. Chester Dewey (1784-1867) in preparing a geological map of Berkshire county, in which the first attempt was made to classify the rocks of the Taconic area. While thus giving much of his time to natural science, undertaking professional work in natural history and geology in Williams College, he also accepted the professorship of chemistry and afterwards of obstetrics in the Albany Medical College. The chief work of his life was, however, in geology, and he has been designated by Jules Marcou as “the founder of American palaeozoic stratigraphy, and the first discoverer of the primordial fauna in any country.” In 1836 he became attached to the Geological Survey of the State of New York, and after lengthened study he grouped the local strata (1842) into the Taconic and overlying New York systems. The latter system was subdivided into several groups that were by no means well defined. Emmons had previously described the Potsdam sandstone (1838), and this was placed at the base of the New York system. It is now regarded as Upper Cambrian. In 1844 Emmons for the first time obtained fossils in his Taconic system: a notable discovery because the species obtained were found to differ from all then-known Palaeozoic fossils, and they were regarded as representing the primordial group. Marcou was thus led to advocate that the term Taconic be generally adopted in place of Cambrian. Nevertheless the Taconic fauna of Emmons has proved to include only the lower part of Sedgwick’s Cambrian. Considerable discussion has taken place on the question of the Taconic system, and whether the term should be adopted; and the general opinion has been adverse. Emmons made contributions on agriculture and geology to a series of volumes on the natural history of New York. He also issued a work entitled American Geology; containing a statement of the principles of the Science, with full illustrations of the characteristic American Fossils (1855-1857). From 1851 to 1860 he was state geologist of North Carolina. He died at Brunswick, North Carolina, on the 1st of October 1863.

See the Biographical Notice of Ebenezer Emmons, by J. Marcou; Amer. Geologist, vol. vii. (Jan., 1891), p. 1 (with portrait and list of publications).

EMMONS, NATHANAEL (1745-1840), American theologian, was born at East Haddam, Connecticut, on the 20th of April 1745. He graduated at Yale in 1767, studied theology under the Rev. John Smalley (1734-1820) at Berlin, Connecticut, and was licensed to preach in 1769. After preaching four years in New York and New Hampshire, he became, in April 1773, pastor of the Second church at Franklin (until 1778 a part of Wrentham, Massachusetts), of which he remained in charge until May 1827, when failing health compelled his relinquishment of active ministerial cares. He lived, however, for many years thereafter, dying of old age at Franklin on the 23rd of September 1840. It was as a theologian that Dr Emmons was best known, and for half a century probably no clergyman in New England exerted so wide an influence. He developed an original system of divinity, somewhat on the structural plan of that of Samuel Hopkins, and, in Emmons’s own belief, contained in and evolved from Hopkinsianism. While by no means abandoning the tenets of the old Calvinistic faith, he came to be looked upon as the chief representative of what was then known as the “new school” of theologians. His system declared that holiness and sin are free voluntary exercises; that men act freely under the divine agency; that the slightest transgression deserves eternal punishment; that it is through God’s mere grace that the penitent believer is pardoned and justified; that, in spite of total depravity, sinners ought to repent; and that regeneration is active, not passive, with the believer. Emmonsism was spread and perpetuated by more than a hundred clergymen, whom he personally trained. Politically, he was an ardent patriot during the War of Independence, and a strong Federalist afterwards, several of his political discourses attracting wide attention. He was a founder and the first president of the Massachusetts Missionary Society, and was influential in the establishment of Andover Theological Seminary. More than two hundred of his sermons and addresses were published during his lifetime. His Works were published in 6 vols. (Boston, 1842; new edition, 1861).

See also the Memoir, by Dr E.A. Park (Andover, 1861).

EMPEDOCLES (c. 490-430 B.C.), Greek philosopher and statesman, was Born at Agrigentum (Acragas, Girgenti) in Sicily of a distinguished family, then at the height of its glory. His grandfather Empedocles was victorious in the Olympian chariot race in 496; in 470 his father Meto was largely instrumental in the overthrow of the tyrant Thrasydaeus. We know almost nothing of his life. The numerous legends which have grown up round his name yield very little that can fairly be regarded as authentic. It seems that he carried on the democratic tradition of his house by helping to overthrow an oligarchic government which succeeded the tyranny in Agrigentum, and was invited by the citizens to become their king. That he refused the honour may have been due to a real enthusiasm for free institutions or to the prudential recognition of the peril which in those turbulent times surrounded the royal dignity. Ultimately a change in the balance of parties compelled him to leave the city, and he died in the Peloponnese of the results of an accident in 430.

Of his poem on nature (φύσις) there are left about 400 lines in unequal fragments out of the original 5000; of the hymns of purification (καθαρμοί) less than 100 verses remain; of the other works, improbably assigned to him, nothing is known. His grand but obscure hexameters, after the example of Parmenides, delighted Lucretius. Aristotle, it is said, called him the father of rhetoric. But it was as at once statesman, prophet, physicist, physician and reformer that he most impressed the popular imagination. To his contemporaries, as to himself, he seemed more than a mere man. The Sicilians honoured his august aspect as he moved amongst them with purple robes and golden girdle, with long hair bound by a Delphic garland, and brazen sandals on his feet, and with a retinue of slaves behind him. Stories were told of the ingenuity and generosity by which he had made the marshes round Selinus salubrious, of the grotesque device by which he laid the winds that ruined the harvests of Agrigentum, and of the almost miraculous restoration to life of a woman who had long lain in a death-like trance. Legends stranger still told of his disappearance from among men. Empedocles, according to one story, was one midnight, after a feast held in his honour, called away in a blaze of glory to the gods; according to another, he had only thrown himself into the crater of Etna, in the hope that men, finding no traces of his end, would suppose him translated to heaven. But his hopes were cheated by the volcano, which cast forth his brazen sandals and betrayed his secret (Diog. Laërt. viii. 67). The people of Agrigentum have never ceased to honour his name, and even in modern times he has been celebrated by followers of Mazzini as the democrat of antiquity par excellence.

As his history is uncertain, so his doctrines are hard to put together. He does not belong to any one definite school. While, on one hand, he combines much that had been suggested by Parmenides, Pythagoras and the Ionic schools, he has germs of truth that Plato and Aristotle afterwards developed; he is at once a firm believer in Orphic mysteries, and a scientific thinker, precursor of the physical scientists. There are, according to Empedocles, four ultimate elements, four primal divinities, of which are made all structures in the world—fire, air, water, earth. These four elements are eternally brought into union, and eternally parted from each other, by two divine beings or powers, love and hatred—an attractive and a repulsive force which the ordinary eye can see working amongst men, but which really pervade the whole world. According to the different proportions in which these four indestructible and unchangeable matters are combined with each other is the difference of the organic structure produced; e.g. flesh and blood are made of equal (in weight but not in volume) parts of all four elements, whereas bones are one-half fire, one-fourth earth, and one-fourth water. It is in the aggregation and segregation of elements thus arising that Empedocles, like the atomists, finds the real process which corresponds to what is popularly termed growth, increase or decrease. Nothing new comes or can come into being; the only change that can occur is a change in the juxtaposition of element with element.

Empedocles apparently regarded love (φιλότης) and discord (νεῖκος) as alternately holding the empire over things,—neither, however, being ever quite absent. As the best and original state, he seems to have conceived a period when love was predominant, and all the elements formed one great sphere or globe. Since that period discord had gained more sway; and the actual world was full of contrasts and oppositions, due to the combined action of both principles. His theory attempted to explain the separation of elements, the formation of earth and sea, of sun and moon, of atmosphere. But the most interesting and most matured part of his views dealt with the first origin of plants and animals, and with the physiology of man. As the elements (his deities) entered into combinations, there appeared quaint results—heads without necks, arms without shoulders. Then as these fragmentary structures met, there were seen horned heads on human bodies, bodies of oxen with men’s heads, and figures of double sex. But most of these products of natural forces disappeared as suddenly as they arose; only in those rare cases where the several parts were found adapted to each other, and casual member fitted into casual member, did the complex structures thus formed last. Thus from spontaneous aggregations of casual aggregates, which suited each other as if this had been intended, did the organic universe originally spring. Soon various influences reduced the creatures of double sex to a male and a female, and the world was replenished with organic life. It is impossible not to see in this theory a crude anticipation of the “survival of the fittest” theory of modern evolutionists.

As man, animal and plant are composed of the same elements in different proportions, there is an identity of nature in them all. They all have sense and understanding; in man, however, and especially in the blood at his heart, mind has its peculiar seat. But mind is always dependent upon the body, and varies with its changing constitution. Hence the precepts of morality are with Empedocles largely dietetic.

Knowledge is explained by the principle that the several elements in the things outside us are perceived by the corresponding elements in ourselves. We know only in so far as we have within us a nature cognate to the object of knowledge. Like is known by like. The whole body is full of pores, and hence respiration takes place over the whole frame. But in the organs of sense these pores are specially adapted to receive the effluxes which are continually rising from bodies around us; and in this way perception is somewhat obscurely explained. The theory, however unsatisfactory as an explanation, has one great merit, that it recognizes between the eye, for instance, and the object seen an intermediate something. Certain particles go forth from the eye to meet similar particles given forth from the object, and the resultant contact constitutes vision. This idea contains within it the germ of the modern idea of the subjectivity of sense-given data; perception is not merely a passive reflection of external objects.

It is not easy to harmonize these quasi-scientific theories with the theory of transmigration of souls which Empedocles seems to expound. Probably the doctrine that the divinity (δαίμων) passes from element to element, nowhere finding a home, is a mystical way of teaching the continued identity of the principles which are at the bottom of every phase of development from inorganic nature to man. At the top of the scale are the prophet and the physician, those who have best learned the secret of life; they are next to the divine. One law, an identity of elements, pervades all nature; existence is one from end to end; the plant and the animal are links in a chain where man is a link too; and even the distinction between male and female is transcended. The beasts are kindred with man; he who eats their flesh is not much better than a cannibal.

Looking at the opposition between these and the ordinary opinions, we are not surprised that Empedocles notes the limitation and narrowness of human perceptions. We see, he says, but a part, and fancy that we have grasped the whole. But the senses cannot lead to truth; thought and reflection must look at the thing on every side. It is the business of a philosopher, while he lays bare the fundamental difference of elements, to display the identity that subsists between what seem unconnected parts of the universe.

See Diog. Laërt. viii. 51-77; Sext. Empiric. Adv. math. vii. 123; Simplicius, Phys. f. 24, f. 76. For text Simon Karsten, “Empedoclis Agrigenti carminum reliquiae,” in Reliq. phil. vet. (Amsterdam, 1838); F.W.A. Mullach, Fragmenta philosophorum Graecorum, vol. i.; H. Stein, Empedoclis Agrigenti fragmenta (Bonn, 1882); H. Ritter and L. Preller, Historia philosophiae (4th ed., Gotha, 1869), chap. iii. ad fin.; A. Fairbanks, The First Philosophers of Greece (1898). Verse translation, W.E. Leonard (1908). For criticism E. Zeller, Phil. der Griechen (Eng. trans. S.F. Alleyne, 2 vols., London, 1881); A.W. Benn, Greek Philosophers (1882); J.A. Symonds, Studies of the Greek Poets (3rd ed., 1893), vol. i. chap. 7; C.B. Renouvier, Manuel de philosophie ancienne (Paris, 1844); T. Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, vol. i. (Eng. trans. L. Magnus, 1901); W. Windelband, Hist. of Phil. (Eng. trans. 1895); many articles in periodicals (see Baldwin’s Dict. of Philos. vol. iii. p. 190).

(W. W.; X.)

EMPEROR (Fr. empereur, from the Lat. imperator), a title formerly borne by the sovereigns of the Roman empire (see Empire), and since their time, partly by derivation, partly by imitation, used by a variety of other sovereigns. Under the Republic, the term imperator applied in theory to any magistrate vested with imperium; but in practice it was only used of a magistrate who was acting abroad (militiae) and was thus in command of troops. The term imperator was the natural and regular designation employed by his troops in addressing such a magistrate; but it was more particularly and specially employed by them to salute him after a victory; and when he had been thus saluted he could use the title of imperator in public till the day of his triumph at Rome, after which it would lapse along with his imperium. The senate itself might, in the later Republic, invite a victorious general to assume the title; and in these two customs—the salutation of the troops, and the invitation of the senate—we see in the germ the two methods by which under the Empire the princeps was designated; while in the military connotation attaching to the name even under the Republic we can detect in advance the military character by which the emperor and the Empire were afterwards distinguished. Julius Caesar was the first who used the title continuously (from 58 B.C. to his death in 44 B.C.), as well domi as militiae; and his nephew Augustus took a further step when he made the term imperator a praenomen, a practice which after the time of Nero becomes regular. But apart from this amalgamation of the term with his regular name, and the private right to its use which that bestowed, every emperor had an additional and double right to the title on public grounds, possessed as he was of an imperium infinitum majus, and commanding as he did all the troops of the Empire. From the latter point of view—as generalissimo of the forces of Rome, he had the right to the insignia of the commander (the laurel wreath and the fasces), and to the protection of a bodyguard, the praetoriani. This public title of imperator was normally conferred by the senate; and an emperor normally dates his reign from the day of his salutation by the senate. But the troops were also regarded as still retaining the right of saluting an imperator; and there were emperors who regarded themselves as created by such salutation and dated their reigns accordingly. The military associations of the term thus resulted, only too often, in making the emperor the nominee of a turbulent soldiery.

Augustus had been designated (not indeed officially, but none the less regularly) as princeps—the first citizen or foremost man of the state. The designation suited the early years of the Empire, in which a dyarchy of princeps and senate had been maintained. But by the 2nd century the dyarchy is passing into a monarchy: the title of princeps recedes, and the title of imperator comes into prominence to designate not merely the possessor of a certain imperium, or the general of troops, but the simple monarch in the fulness of his power as head of the state. From the days of Diocletian one finds occasionally two emperors, but not, at any rate in theory, two Empires; the two emperors are the dual sovereigns of a single realm. But from the time of Arcadius and Honorius (A.D. 395) there are in reality (though not in theory) two Empires as well as two emperors, one of the East and one of the West. When Greek became the sole language of the East Roman Empire, imperator was rendered sometimes by βασιλεύς and sometimes by αὐτοκράτωρ, the former word being the usual designation of a sovereign, the latter specially denoting that despotic power which the imperator held, and being in fact the official translation of imperator. Justinian uses αὐτοκράτωρ as his formal title, and βασιλεύς as the popular term.

On the revival of the Roman empire in the West by Charlemagne in 800, the title (at first in the form imperator, or imperator Augustus, afterwards Romanorum imperator Augustus) was taken by him and by his Frankish, Italian and German successors, heads of the Holy Roman Empire, down to the abdication of the emperor Francis II. in 1806. The doctrine had, however, grown up in the earlier middle ages (about the time of the emperor Henry II., 1002-1024) that although the emperor was chosen in Germany (at first by the nation, afterwards by a small body of electors), and entitled from the moment of his election to be crowned in Rome by the pope, he could not use the title of emperor until that coronation had actually taken place. The German sovereign, therefore, though he exercised, as soon as chosen, full imperial powers both in Germany and Italy, called himself merely “king of the Romans” (Romanorum rex semper Augustus) until he had received the sacred crown in the sacred city. In 1508 Maximilian I., being refused a passage to Rome by the Venetians, obtained from Pope Julius II. a bull permitting him to style himself emperor elect (imperator electus, erwählter Kaiser). This title was taken by Ferdinand I. (1558) and all succeeding emperors, immediately upon their coronation in Germany; and it was until 1806 their strict legal designation, and was always employed by them in proclamations and other official documents. The term “elect” was, however, omitted even in formal documents when the sovereign was addressed or was spoken of in the third person.

In medieval times the emperor, conceived as vicegerent of God and co-regent with the pope in government of the Christian people committed to his charge, might almost be regarded as an ecclesiastical officer. Not only was his function regarded as consisting in the defence and extension of true religion; he was himself arrayed in ecclesiastical vestments at his coronation; he was ordained a subdeacon; and assisting the pope in the celebration of the Eucharist, he communicated in both kinds as a clerk. The same sort of ecclesiastical character came also to be attached to the tsars1 of Russia, who—especially in their relations with the Orthodox Eastern Church—may vindicate for themselves (though the sultans of Turkey have disputed the claim) the succession to the East Roman emperors (see Empire). But the title of emperor was also used in the middle ages, and is still used, in a loose and vague sense, without any ecclesiastical connotation or hint of connexion with Rome (the two attributes which should properly distinguish an emperor), and merely in order to designate a non-European ruler with a large extent of territory. It was thus applied, and is still applied, to the rulers of China and Japan; it was attributed to the Mogul sovereigns of India; and since 1876 it has been used by British monarchs in their capacity of sovereigns of India (Kaiser-i-Hind).2

Since the French Revolution and during the course of the 19th century the term emperor has had an eventful history. In 1804 Napoleon took the title of “Emperor of the French,” and posed as the reviver of the Empire of Charlemagne. Afraid that Napoleon would next proceed to deprive him of his title of Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II. first took the step, in 1804, of investing himself with a new title, that of “Hereditary Emperor of Austria,” and then, in 1806, proceeded to the further step of abdicating his old historical title and dissolving the Holy Roman Empire. Thus the old and true sense of the term emperor—the sense in which it was connected with the church in the present and with Rome in the past—finally perished; and the term became partly an apanage of Bonapartism (Louis Napoleon resuscitated it as Napoleon III. in 1853), and partly a personal title of the Habsburgs as rulers of their various family territories. In 1870, however, a new and most important use of the title was begun, when the union of Germany was achieved, and the Prussian king, who became the head of united Germany, received in that capacity the title of German Emperor. Here the title of emperor designates the president of a federal state; and here the Holy Roman emperor of the 17th and 18th centuries, the president of a loose confederation of German states, may be said to have found his successor. But the term has been widely and loosely used in the course of the 19th century. It was the style from 1821 to 1889 of the princes of the house of Braganza who ruled in Brazil; it has been assumed by usurpers in Haiti, and in Mexico it was borne by Augustin Iturbide in 1822 and 1823, and by the ill-fated Archduke Maximilian of Austria from 1864 to 1867. It can hardly, therefore, be said to have any definite descriptive force at the present time, such as it had in the middle ages. So far as it has any such force in Europe, it may be said partly to be connected with Bonapartism, and to denote a popular but military dictatorship, partly to be connected with the federal idea, and to denote a precedence over other kings possessed by a ruler standing at the head of a composite state which may embrace kings among its members. It is in this latter sense that it is used of Germany, and of Britain in respect of India; it is in something approaching this latter sense that it may be said to be used of Austria.

See J. Selden, Titles of Honour (1672); J. Bryce, Holy Roman Empire (London, 1904); and Sir E. Colebrooke, “On Imperial and Other Titles” in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1877). See also the articles on “Imperator” and “Princeps” in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890).

(E. Br.)

1 The word Tsar, like the German Kaiser, is derived from Caesar (see Tsar). Peter the Great introduced the use of the style “Imperator,” and the official designation is now “Emperor of all the Russias, Tsar of Poland, and Grand Duke of Finland,” though the term tsar is still popularly used in Russia.

2 For the titles of βασιλεύς, imperator Augustus, &c., applied in the 10th century to the Anglo-Saxon kings, see Empire (note). The claim to the style of emperor, as a badge of equal rank, played a considerable part in the diplomatic relations between the Sultan and certain European sovereigns. Thus, at a time when this style (Padishah) was refused by the Sultan to the tsars of Russia, and even to the Holy Roman Emperor himself, it was allowed to the French kings, who in diplomatic correspondence and treaties with Turkey called themselves “emperor of France” (empereur de France).—[Ed.].

EMPHYSEMA (Gr. ἐμφυσᾶν to inflate) is a word vaguely meaning the abnormal presence of air in certain parts of the body. At the present day, however, there are two conditions to which it refers, “pulmonary emphysema” (and the word pulmonary is often omitted) and “surgical emphysema.” Of pulmonary emphysema there are two forms, true vesicular and interstitial (or interlobular). Vesicular emphysema signifies that there is an enlargement of air-vesicles, resulting either from their excessive distension, from destruction of the septa, or from both causes combined (see Respiratory System). In interstitial emphysema the air is infiltrated into the connective tissue beneath the pleura and between the pulmonary air-cells.

The former variety is by far the more common, and appears to be capable of being produced by various causes, the chief of which are the following:—

1. Where a portion of the lung has become wasted, or its vesicular structure permanently obliterated by disease, without corresponding falling in of the chest wall, the neighbouring air-vesicles or some of them undergo dilatation to fill the vacuum (vicarious emphysema).

2. In some cases of bronchitis, where numbers of the smaller bronchial tubes become obstructed, the air in the pulmonary vesicles remains imprisoned, the force of expiration being insufficient to expel it; while, on the other hand, the stronger force of inspiration being adequate to overcome the resistance, the air-cells tend to become more and more distended, and permanent alterations in their structure, including emphysema, are the result (inspiratory theory).

3. Emphysema also arises from exertion involving violent expiratory efforts, during which the glottis is constricted, as in paroxysms of coughing, in straining, and in lifting heavy weights (expiratory theory). Whooping-cough is well known as the exciting cause of emphysema in many persons.

4. Another view, known as the nutritive theory, maintains that emphysema depends essentially on a primary nutritive change in the walls of the air-vesicles. Thus these are impaired in their resisting power, and are far more likely to become distended by any force acting on them from within.

5. Again in certain cases the cartilages of the chest become hypertrophied and rigid, thus causing a primary chronic enlargement, and the lungs become emphysematous in order to fill up the increased space (Freund’s theory).

In whatever manner produced, this disease gives rise to important morbid changes in the affected portions of the lungs, especially the loss of the natural elasticity of the air-cells, and likewise the destruction of many of the pulmonary capillary blood-vessels, and the diminution of aerating surface for the blood. As a consequence an increased strain is thrown on the right ventricle with a consequent dilatation leading on to heart failure and all its attendant troubles. The chief symptom in this complaint is shortness of breath, more or less constant but greatly aggravated by exertion, and by attacks of bronchitis, to which persons suffering from emphysema appear to be specially liable. The respiration is of similar character to that already described in the case of asthma. In severe forms of the disease the patient comes to acquire a peculiar puffy or bloated appearance, and the configuration of the chest is altered, assuming the character known as the barrel-shaped or emphysematous chest.

The main element in the treatment of emphysema consists in attention to the general condition of the health, and in the avoidance of all causes likely to aggravate the disease or induce its complications. Compressed air baths and expiration into rarefied air may be useful. During attacks of urgent dyspnoea and lividity, with engorgement of veins, the patient should be repeatedly bled until relief is obtained. Interstitial emphysema arising from the rupture of air-cells in the immediate neighbourhood of the pleura may occur as a complication of the vesicular form, or separately as the result of some sudden expulsive effort, such as a fit of coughing, or, as has frequently happened, in parturition. Gangrene or post-mortem decomposition may lead to the presence of air in the interstitial tissue of the lung. Occasionally the air infiltrates the cellular tissue of the posterior mediastinum, and thence comes to distend the integument of the whole surface of the body (surgical emphysema). Surgical emphysema signifies the effusion of air into the general connective tissues of the body. The commonest causes are a wound of some air-passage, or a penetrating wound of the chest wall without injury to the lung. It may, however, occur in any situation of the body and in many other ways. Its severity varies from very slight cases where only a little crepitation may be felt under the skin, to extreme cases where the whole body is blown up and death is imminent from impeded respiration and failure of the action of the heart. In the milder cases no treatment is necessary as the air gradually becomes absorbed, but in the more severe cases incisions must be made in the swollen cellular tissues to allow the air to escape.

EMPIRE, a term now used to denote a state of large size and also (as a rule) of composite character, often, but not necessarily, ruled by an emperor—a state which may be a federation, like the German empire, or a unitary state, like the Russian, or even, like the British empire, a loose commonwealth of free states united to a number of subordinate dependencies. For many centuries the writers of the Church, basing themselves on the Apocalyptic writings, conceived of a cycle of four empires, generally explained—though there was no absolute unanimity with regard to the members of the cycle—as the Assyrian, the Persian, the Macedonian and the Roman. But in reality the conception of Empire, like the term itself (Lat. imperium), is of Roman origin. The empire of Alexander had indeed in some ways anticipated the empire of Rome. “In his later years,” Professor Bury writes, “Alexander formed the notion of an empire, both European and Asiatic, in which the Asiatics should not be dominated by the European invaders, but Europeans and Asiatics alike should be ruled on an equality by a monarch, indifferent to the distinction of Greek and barbarian, and looked upon as their own king by Persians as well as by Macedonians.” The contemporary Cynic philosophy of cosmopolitanism harmonized with this notion, as Stoicism did later with the practice of the Roman empire; and Alexander, like Diocletian and Constantine, accustomed a Western people to the forms of an Oriental court, while, like the earlier Caesars, he claimed and received the recognition of his own divinity. But when he died in 323, his empire, which had barely lasted ten years, died with him; and it was divided among Diadochi who, if in some other respects (for instance, the Hellenization of the East) they were heirs of their master’s policy, were destitute of the imperial conception. The work of Alexander was rather that of the forerunner than the founder. He prepared the way for the world-empire of Rome; he made possible the rise of a universal religion. And these are the two factors which, throughout the middle ages, went together to make the thing which men called Empire.

At Rome the term imperium signified generally, in its earlier use, the sovereignty of the state over the individual, a sovereignty which the Romans had disengaged with singular clearness from all other kinds of authority. Each of The Roman empire. the higher magistrates of the Roman people was vested, by a lex curiata (for power was distinctly conceived as resident in, and delegated by, the community), with an imperium both civil and military, which varied in degree with the magnitude of his office. In the later days of the Republic such imperium was enjoyed, partly in Rome by the resident consuls and praetors, partly in the provinces by the various proconsuls or propraetors. There was thus a certain morcellement of imperium, delegated as it was by the people to a number of magistrates: the coming of the Empire meant the reintegration of this imperium, and its unification, by a gradual process, in the hands of the princeps, or emperor. The means by which this process was achieved had already been anticipated under the Republic. Already in the days of Pompey it had been found convenient to grant to an extraordinary officer an imperium aequum or majus over a large area, and that officer thus received powers, within that area, equal to, or greater than, the powers of the provincial governors. This precedent was followed by Augustus in the year 27 B.C., when he acquired for himself sole imperium in a certain number of provinces (the imperial provinces), and an infinitum imperium majus in the remaining provinces (which were termed senatorial). As a result, Augustus enjoyed an imperium coextensive indeed with the whole of the Roman world, but concurrent, in part of that world, with the imperium of the senatorial proconsuls; and the early Empire may thus be described as a dyarchy. But the distinction between imperial and senatorial provinces finally disappeared; by the time of Constantine the emperor enjoyed sole imperium, and an absolute monarchy had been established. We shall not, however, fully understand the significance of the Roman empire, unless we realize the importance of its military aspect. All the soldiers of Rome had from the first to swear in verba Caesaris Augusti; and thus the whole of the Roman army was his army, regiments of which he might indeed lend, but of which he was sole Imperator (see under Emperor). Thus regarded as a permanent commander-in-chief, the emperor enjoyed the privileges, and suffered from the weaknesses, of his position. He had the power of the sword behind him; but he became more and more liable to be deposed, and to be replaced by a new commander, at the will of those who bore the sword in his service.

The period which is marked by the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine (A.D. 284-337) marks a great transformation in the character of the Empire. The old dyarchy, under which the emperor might still be regarded as an official Development under Diocletian and Constantine. of the respublica Romana, passed into a new monarchy, in which all political power became, as it were, the private property of the monarch. There was now no distinction of provinces; and the old public aerarium became merely a municipal treasury, while the fiscus of the emperor became the exchequer of the Empire. The officers of the imperial praetorium, or bodyguard, are now the great officers of state; his private council becomes the public consistory, or supreme court of appeal; and the comites of his court are the administrators of his empire. “All is in him, and all comes from him,” as our own year-books say of the medieval king; his household, for instance, is not only a household, but also an administration. On the other hand, this unification seems to be accompanied by a new bifurcation. The exigencies of frontier defence had long been drawing the Empire towards the troubled East; and this tendency reached its culmination when a new Rome arose by the Bosporus, and Constantinople became the centre of what Division of the Empire. seemed a second Empire in the East (A.D. 324). Particularly after the division of the Empire between Arcadius and Honorius in 395 does this bifurcation appear to be marked; and one naturally speaks of the two Empires of the West and the East. Yet it cannot be too much emphasized that in reality such language is utterly inexact. The Roman empire was, and always continued to be, ideally one and indivisible. There were two emperors, but one Empire—two persons, but one power. The point is of great importance for the understanding of the whole of the middle ages: there only is, and can be, one Empire, which may indeed, for convenience, be ruled conjointly by two emperors, resident, again for convenience, in two separate capitals. And, as a matter of fact, not only did the residence of an emperor in the East not spell bifurcation, it actually fostered the tendency towards unification. It helped forward the transformation of the Empire into an absolute and quasi-Asiatic monarchy, under which all its subjects fell into a single level of loyal submission: it helped to give the emperor a gorgeous court, marked by all the ceremony and the servility of the East.1 The deification of the emperor himself dates from the days of Augustus; by the time of Constantine it has infected the court and the government. Each emperor, again, had from the first enjoyed the sacrosanct position which was attached to the tribunate; but now his palace, his chamber, his charities, his letters, are all “sacred,” and one might almost speak in advance of a “Holy Roman Empire.”

But there is one factor, the greatest of all, which still remains to be added, before we have counted the sum of the forces that made the world think in terms of empire for centuries to come; and that is the reception of Christianity into Influence of Christianity. the Roman empire by Constantine. That reception added a new sanction to the existence of the Empire and the position of the emperor. The Empire, already one and indivisible in its aspect of a political society, was welded still more firmly together when it was informed and permeated by a common Christianity, and unified by the force of a spiritual bond. The Empire was now the Church; it was now indeed indestructible, for, if it perished as an empire, it would live as a church. But the Church made it certain that it would not perish, even as an empire, for many centuries to come. On the one hand the Church thought in terms of empire and taught the millions of its disciples (including the barbarians themselves) to think in the same terms. No other political conception—no conception of a πόλις or of a nation—was any longer possible. When the Church gained its hold of the Roman world, the Empire, as it has been well said, was already “not only a government, but a fashion of conceiving the world”: it had stood for three centuries, and no man could think of any other form of political association. Moreover, the gospel of St Paul—that there is one Church, whereof Christ is the Head, and we are all members—could not but reinforce for the Christian the conception of a necessary political unity of all the world under a single head. Una Chiesa in uno Stato—such, then, was the theory of the Church. But not only did the Church perpetuate the conception of empire by making it a part of its own theory of the world: it perpetuated that conception equally by materializing it in its own organization of itself. Growing up under the shadow of the Empire, the Church too became an empire, as the Empire had become a church. As it took over something of the old pagan ceremonial, so it took over much of the old secular organization. The pope borrowed his title of pontifex maximus from the emperor: what is far more, he made himself gradually, and in the course of centuries, the Caesar and Imperator of the Church. The offices and the dioceses of the Church are parallel to the offices and dioceses of the Diocletian empire: the whole spirit of orderly hierarchy and regular organization, which breathes in the Roman Church, is the heritage of ancient Rome. The Donation of Constantine is a forgery; but it expresses a great truth when it represents Constantine as giving to the pope the imperial palace and insignia, and to the clergy the ornaments of the imperial army (see Donation of Constantine).

Upon this world, informed by these ideas, there finally descended, in the 5th century, the avalanche of barbaric invasion. Its impact seemed to split the Empire into fragmentary kingdoms; yet it left the universal Church intact, Barbarian invasions. and with it the conception of empire. With that conception, indeed, the barbarians had already been for centuries familiar: service in Roman armies, and settlement in Roman territories, had made the Roman empire for them, as much as for the civilized provincial, part of the order of the world. One of the barbarian invaders, Odoacer (Odovakar), might seem, in 476, to have swept away the Empire from the West, when he commanded the abdication of Romulus Augustulus; and the date 476 has indeed been generally emphasized as marking “the fall of the Western empire.” Other invaders, again, men like the Frank Clovis or the great Ostrogoth Theodoric, might seem, in succeeding years, to have completed the work of Odoacer, and to have shattered the sorry scheme of the later Empire, by remoulding it into national kingdoms. De facto, there is some truth in such a view: de jure, there is none.2 All that Odoacer did was to abolish one of the two joint rulers of the indivisible Empire, and to make the remaining ruler at Constantinople sole emperor from the Bosporus to the pillars of Hercules. He abolished the dual sovereignty which had been inaugurated by Diocletian, and returned to the unity of the Empire in the days of Marcus Aurelius. He did not abolish the Roman empire in the West: he only abolished its separate ruler, and, leaving the Empire itself subsisting, under the sway (nominal, it is true, but none the less acknowledged) of the emperor resident at Constantinople, he claimed to act as his vicar, under the name of patrician, in the administration of the Italian provinces.3 As Odoacer thus fitted himself into the scheme of empire, so did both Clovis and Theodoric. They do not claim to be emperors (that was reserved for Charlemagne): they claim to be the vicars and lieutenants of the Empire. Theodoric spoke of himself to Zeno as imperio vestro famulans; he left justice and administration in Roman hands, and maintained two annual consuls in Rome. Clovis received the title of consul from Anastasius; the Visigothic kings of Spain (like the kings of the savage Lombards) styled themselves Flavii, and permitted the cities of their eastern coast to send tribute to Constantinople. Yet it must be admitted that, as a matter of fact, this adhesion of the new barbaric kings to the Empire was little more than a form. The Empire maintained its ideal unity by treating them as its vicars; but they themselves were forming separate and independent kingdoms within its borders. The Italy of the Ostrogoths cannot have belonged, in any real sense, to the Empire; otherwise Justinian would never have needed to attempt its reconquest. And in the 7th and 8th centuries the form of adhesion itself decayed: the emperor was retiring upon the Greek world of the East, and the German conquerors, settled within their kingdoms, lost the width of outlook of their old migratory days.

It is here that the action of the Church becomes of supreme importance. The Church had not ceased to believe in the continuous life of the Empire. The Fathers had taught that when the cycle of empires was finally The Church and the Empire. ended by the disappearance of the empire of Rome, the days of Antichrist would dawn; and, since Antichrist was not yet come, the Church believed that the Empire still lived, and would continue to live till his coming. Meanwhile the Eastern emperor, ever since Justinian’s reconquest of Italy, had been able to maintain his hold on the centre of Italy; and Rome itself, the seat of the head of the Church, still ranked as one of the cities under his sway. The imperialist theory of the Church found its satisfaction in this connexion of its head with Constantinople; and as long as this connexion continued to satisfy the Church, there was little prospect of any change. For many years after their invasion of 568, the pressure which the Lombards maintained on central Italy, from their kingdom in the valley of the Po, kept the popes steadily faithful to the emperor of the East and his representative in Italy, the exarch of Ravenna. But it was not in the nature of things that such Growing divergence between East and West. The popes. fidelity should continue unimpaired. The development of the East and the West could not but proceed along constantly diverging lines, until the point was reached when their connexion must snap. On the one hand, the development of the West set towards the increase of the powers of the bishop of Rome until he reached a height at which subjection to the emperor at Constantinople became impossible. Residence in Rome, the old seat of empire, had in itself given him a great prestige; and to this prestige St Gregory (pope from 590 to 604) had added in a number of ways. He was one of the Fathers of the Church, and turned its theology into the channels in which it was to flow for centuries; he had acquired for his church the great spiritual colony of England by the mission of St Augustine; he had been the protector of Italy against the Lombards. As the popes thus became more and more spiritual emperors of the West, they found themselves less and less able to remain the subjects of the lay emperor of the East. Meanwhile the emperors of the East were led to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs in a manner which the popes and the Western Church refused to tolerate. Brought into contact with the pure monotheism of Mahommedanism, Leo the Isaurian (718-741) was stimulated into a crusade against image-worship, in order to remove from the Christian Church the charge of idolatry. The West clung to its images: the popes revolted against his decrees; and the breach rapidly became irreparable. As the hold of the Eastern emperor on central Italy began to be shaken, the popes may have begun to cherish the hope of becoming their successors and of founding a temporal dominion; and that hope can only have contributed to the final dissolution of their connexion with the Eastern empire.

Thus, in the course of the 8th century, the Empire, as represented by the emperors at Constantinople, had begun to fade utterly out of the West. It had been forgotten by lay sovereigns; it was being abandoned by the pope, who had been its chosen apostle. But it did not follow that, because the Eastern emperor ceased to be the representative of the Empire for the West, the conception of Empire itself therefore perished. The popes only abandoned the representative; they did not abandon the conception. If they had abandoned the conception, they would have abandoned the idea that there was an order of the world; they would have committed themselves to a belief in the coming of Antichrist. The conception of the world as a single Empire-Church remained: what had to be discovered was a new representative of one of the two sides of that conception. For a brief time, it would seem, the pope himself cherished the idea of becoming, in his own person, the successor of the ancient Caesars in their own old capital. By the aid of the Frankish kings, he had been able to stop the Lombards from acquiring the succession to the derelict territories of the Eastern emperor in Italy (from which their last exarch had fled overseas in 752), and he had become the temporal sovereign of those territories. Successor to the Eastern emperor in central Italy, why should he not also become his successor as representative of the Empire—all the more, since he was the head of the Church, which was coextensive with the Empire? Some such hope seems to inspire the Donation of Constantine, a document forged between 754 and 774, in which Constantine is represented as having conferred on Silvester I. the imperial palace and insignia, and therewith omnes Italiae seu occidentalium regionum provincias loca et civitates. But the hope, if it ever was cherished, proved to be futile. The popes had not the material force at their command which would have made them adequate to the position. The strong arm of the Frankish kings had alone Coronation of Charlemagne as emperor of the West. delivered them from the Lombards: the same strong arm, they found, was needed to deliver them from the wild nobility of their own city. So they turned to the power which was strong enough to undertake the task which they could not themselves attempt, and they invited the Frankish king to become the representative of the imperial conception they cherished.4 In the year 800 central Italy ceased to date its documents by the regnal years of the Eastern emperors; for Charlemagne was crowned emperor in their stead.

The king of the Franks was well fitted for the position which he was chosen to fill. He was king of a stock which had been from the first Athanasian, and had never been tainted, like most of the Germanic tribes, by the adoption of Arian tenets. His grandfather, Charles Martel, had saved Europe from the danger of a Mahommedan conquest by his victory at Poitiers (732); his father, Pippin the Short, had helped the English missionary Boniface to achieve the conversion of Germany. The popes themselves had turned to the Frankish kings for support again and again in the course of the 8th century. Gregory III., involved in bitter hostilities with the iconoclastic reformers of the East, appealed to Charles Martel for aid, and even offered the king, it is said, the titles of consul and patrician. Zacharias pronounced the deposition of the last of the Merovingians, and gave to Pippin the title of king (751); while his successor, Stephen II., hard pressed by the Lombards, who were eager to replace the Eastern emperors in the possession of central Italy, not only asked and received the aid of the new king, but also acquired, in virtue of Pippin’s donation (754), the disputed exarchate itself. Thus was laid the foundation of the States of the Church; and the grateful pope rewarded the donation by the gift of the title of patricius Romanorum, which conferred on its recipient the duty and the privilege of protecting the Roman Church, along with some undefined measure of authority in Rome itself.5 Finally, in 773, Pope Adrian I. had to appeal to Charles, the successor of Pippin, against the aggressions of the last of the Lombard kings; and in 774 Charles conquered the Lombard kingdom, and himself assumed its iron crown. Thus by the end of the 8th century the Frankish king stood on the very steps of the imperial throne. He ruled a realm which extended from the Pyrenees to the Harz, and from Hamburg to Rome—a realm which might be regarded as in itself a de facto empire. He bore the title of patricius, and he had shown that he did not bear it in vain by his vigorous defence of the papacy in 774. Here there stood, ready to hand, a natural representative of the conception of Empire; and Leo III., finding that he needed the aid of Charlemagne to maintain himself against his own Romans, finally took the decisive step of crowning him emperor, as he knelt in prayer at St Peter’s, on Christmas Day, 800.

The coronation of Charlemagne in 800 marks the coalescence into a single unity of two facts, or rather, more strictly speaking, of a fact and a theory. The fact is German and secular: it is the wide de facto empire, which the Frankish sword had conquered, and Frankish policy had organized as a single whole. The theory is Latin and ecclesiastical: it is a theory of the necessary political unity of the world, and its necessary representation in the person of an emperor—a theory half springing Theory of the Carolingian empire. from the unity of the old Roman empire, and half derived from the unity of the Christian Church as conceived in the New Testament. If we seek for the force which caused this fact and this theory to coalesce in the Carolingian empire, we can only answer—the papacy. The idea of Empire was in the Church; and the head of the Church translated this idea into fact. If, however, we seek to conceive the event of 800 from a political or legal point of view, and to determine the residence of the right of constituting an emperor, we at once drift into the fogs of centuries of controversy. Three answers are possible from three points of view; and all have their truth, according to the point of view. From the ecclesiastical point of view, the right resides with the pope. This theory was not promulgated (indeed no theory was promulgated) until the struggles of Papacy and Empire in the course of the middle ages; but by the time of Innocent III. it is becoming an established doctrine that a translatio Imperii took place in 800, whereby the pope transferred the Roman empire from the Greeks to the Germans in the person of the magnificent Charles.6 One can only say that, as a matter of fact, the popes ceased to recognize the Eastern emperors, and recognized Charles instead, in the year 800; that, again, this recognition alone made Charles emperor, as nothing else could have done; but that no question arose, at the time, of any right of the pope to give the Empire to Charlemagne, for the simple reason that neither of the actors was acting or thinking in a legal spirit. If we now turn to study the point of view of the civil lawyer, animated by such a spirit, and basing himself on the code of Justinian, we shall find that an emperor must derive his institution and power from a lex regia passed by the populus Romanus; and such a view, strictly interpreted, will lead us to the conclusion that the citizens of Rome had given the crown to Charlemagne in 800, and continued to bestow it on successive emperors afterwards. There is indeed some speech, in the contemporary accounts of Charlemagne’s coronation, of the presence of “ancients among the Romans” and of “the faithful people”; but they are merely present to witness or applaud, and the conception of the Roman people as the source of Empire is one that was only championed, at a far later date, by antiquarian idealists like Arnold of Brescia and Cola di Rienzi. The faex Romuli, a population of lodging-house keepers, living upon pilgrims to the papal court, could hardly be conceived, except by an ardent imagination, as heir to the Quirites of the past. Finally, from the point of view of the German tribesman, we must admit that the Empire was something which, once received by his king (no matter how), descended in the royal family as an heirloom; or to which (when the kingship became elective) a title was conferred, along with the kingship, by the vote of electors.7

But apart from these questions of origin, two difficulties have still to be faced with regard to the nature and position of the Carolingian empire. Did Charlemagne and his successors enter into a new relation with their subjects, in virtue of their coronation? And what was the nature of the relation between the new emperor now established in the West and the old emperor still reigning in the East? It is true that Charlemagne exacted a new oath of allegiance from his subjects after his coronation, and again that he had a revision of all the laws of his dominions made in 802. But the revision did not amount to much in bulk: what there was contained little that was Roman; and, on the whole, it hardly seems probable that Charlemagne entered into any new relation with his subjects. The relation of his empire to the empire in the East is a more difficult and important problem. In 797 the empress Irene had deposed and blinded her son, Constantine VI., and usurped his throne. Now it would seem that Charlemagne, whose thoughts were already set on Empire, hoped to depose and succeed Irene, and thus to become sole representative of the conception Relations of the Carolingian to the Eastern empire. of Empire, both for the East and for the West. Suddenly there came, in 800, his own coronation as emperor, an act apparently unpremeditated at the moment, taking him by surprise, as one gathers from Einhard’s Vita Karoli, and interrupting his plans. It left him representative of the Empire for the West only, confronting another representative in the East. Such a position he did not desire: there had been a single Empire vested in a single person since 476, and he desired that there should still continue to be a single Empire, vested only in his own person. He now sought to achieve this unity by a proposal of marriage to Irene. The proposal failed, and he had to content himself with a recognition of his imperial title by the two successors of the empress. This did not, however, mean (at any rate in the issue) that henceforth there were to be two conjoint rulers, amicably ruling as colleagues a single Empire, in the manner of Arcadius and Honorius. The dual government of a single Empire established by Diocletian had finally vanished in 476; and the unity of the Empire was now conceived, as it had been conceived before the days of Diocletian, to demand a single representative. Henceforth there were two rulers, one at Aix-la-Chapelle and one at Constantinople, each claiming, whatever temporary concessions he might make, to be the sole ruler and representative of the Roman empire. On the one hand, the Western emperors held that, upon the deposition of Constantine VI., Charlemagne had succeeded him, after a slight interval, in the government of the whole Empire, both in the East and in the West; on the other hand, the Eastern emperors, in spite of their grudging recognition of Charlemagne at the moment, regarded themselves as the only lawful successors of Constantine VI., and viewed the Carolings and their later successors as upstarts and usurpers, with no right to their imperial pretensions. Henceforth two halves confronted one another, each claiming to be the whole; two finite bodies touched, and each yet claimed to be infinite.