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-Cambresis 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 Santhia) 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, Niccolo 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 Santhia 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 'Amwas, 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.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Including Codex [Hebrew: alef]. 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 depots 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 depots, 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 depots 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 1-1/2 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 ([Greek: physis]) there are left about 400 lines in unequal fragments out of the original 5000; of the hymns of purification ([Greek: katharmoi]) 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. Laert. 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 ([Greek: philotes]) and discord ([Greek: neikos]) 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 ([Greek: daimon]) 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. Laert. 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 [Greek: basileus] and sometimes by [Greek: autokrator], 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 [Greek: autokrator] as his formal title, and [Greek: basileus] 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_, erwahlter 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 tsars[1] 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.)

FOOTNOTES:

[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 [Greek: Basileus], _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. [Greek: emphysan] 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.

The Roman 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 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.

Development under Diocletian and Constantine.

Division of the Empire.

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 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 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."

Influence of Christianity.

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 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 [Greek: polis] 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).

Barbarian invasions.

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, 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.

The Church and the Empire.

Growing divergence between East and West.

The popes.

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 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 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.

Coronation of Charlemagne as emperor of the West.

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 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.

Theory of the Carolingian empire.

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 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]

Relations of the Carolingian to the Eastern empire.

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 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.

Character of the Carolingian empire.

Break-up of the Carolingian empire.

Attitude of the papacy.

If, as has been suggested, Charlemagne did not enter into any fundamentally new relations with his subjects after his coronation, it follows that the results of his coronation, in the sphere of policy and administration, cannot have been considerable. The Empire added a new sanction to a policy and administration already developed. Charlemagne had already showed himself _episcopus episcoporum_, anxious not only to suppress heresy and supervise the clergy within his borders, but also to extend true Christianity without them even before the year when his imperial coronation gave him a new title to supreme governorship in all cases ecclesiastical. He had already organized his empire on a new uniform system of counties, and the _missi dominici_ were already at work to superintend the action of the counts, even before the _renovatio imperii Romani_ came to suggest such uniformity and centralization. Charlemagne had a new title; but his subjects still obeyed the king of the Franks, and lived by Frankish law, in the old fashion. In their eyes, and in the eyes of Charlemagne's own descendants, the Empire was something appendant to the kingship of the Franks, which made that kingship unique among others, but did not radically alter its character. True, the kingship might be divided among brothers by the old Germanic custom of partition, while the Empire must inhere in one person; but that was the one difference, and the one difficulty, which might easily be solved by attaching the name of emperor to the eldest brother. Such was the conception of the Carolings: such was not, however, the conception of the Church. To the popes the Empire was a solemn office, to which the kings of the Franks might most naturally be called, in view of their power and the traditions of their house, but which by no means remained in their hands as a personal property. By thus seeking to dissociate the Empire from any indissoluble connexion with the Carolingian house, the popes were able to save it. Civil wars raged among the descendants of Charlemagne: partitions recurred: the Empire was finally dissolved, in the sense that the old realm of Charlemagne fell asunder, in 888. But the Empire, as an office, did not perish. During the 9th century the popes had insisted, as each emperor died, that the new emperor needed coronation at their hands; and they had thus kept alive the conception of the Empire as an office to which they invited, if they did not appoint, each successive emperor. The quarrels of the Carolingian house helped them to make good their claim. John VIII. was able to select Charles the Bald in preference to other claimants in 875; and before the end of his pontificate he could write that "he who is to be ordained by us to the Empire must be by us first and foremost invited and elected." Thus was the unity of the Empire preserved, and the conception of a united Empire continued, in spite of the eventual dissolution of the realm of Charlemagne. When the Carolingian emperors disappeared, Benedict IV. could crown Louis of Provence (901) and John X. could invite to the vacant throne an Italian potentate like Berengar of Friuli (915); and even when Berengar died in 924, and the Empire was vacant of an emperor, they could hold, and hold with truth, that the Empire was not dead, but only suspended, until such time as they should invite a new ruler to assume the office.

The German kingdom and the empire.

The Holy Roman Empire.

Various causes had contributed to the dissolution of the realm of Charlemagne. Partitions had split it; feudalism had begun to honeycomb it; incessant wars had destroyed its core, the fighting Franks of Austrasia. But, above all, the rise of divisions within the realm, which, whether animated by the spirit of nationality or no, were ultimately destined to develop into nations, had silently undermined the structure of Pippin and Charlemagne. Already in 842 the oath of Strassburg shows us one Caroling king swearing in French and another in German: already in 870 the partition of Mersen shows us the kings of France and Germany dividing the middle kingdom which lay between the two countries by the linguistic frontier of the Meuse and Moselle. The year 888 is the birth-year of modern Europe. France, Germany, Italy, stood distinct as three separate units, with Burgundy and Lorraine as debatable lands, as they were destined to remain for centuries to come. If the conception of Empire was still to survive, the pope must ultimately invite the ruler of the strongest of these three units to assume the imperial crown; and this was what happened when in 962 Pope John XII. invited Otto I. of Germany to renew once more the Roman Empire. As the imperial strength of the whole Frankish tribe had given them the Empire in 800, so did the national strength of the East Frankish kingdom, now resting indeed on a Saxon rather than a Frankish basis, bring the Empire to its ruler in 962. The centre of political gravity had already been shifting to the east of the Rhine in the course of the 9th century. While the Northmen had carried their arms along the rivers and into the heart of France, Louis the German had consolidated his kingdom in a long reign of sixty years (817-876); and at the end of the 9th century two kings of Germany had already worn the imperial crown. Early in the 10th century the kingship of Germany had come to the vigorous Saxon dukes (919); and strong in their Saxon basis Henry I. and his son Otto had built a realm which, disunited as it was, was far more compact than that which the Carolings of the West ruled from Laon. Henry I. had thought in his later years of going to Rome for the imperial crown: under Otto I. the imperial idea becomes manifest. On the one hand, he established a semi-imperial position in the West: by 946 Louis IV. d'Outremer is his protege, and it is his arms which maintain the young Conrad of Burgundy on his throne. On the other hand, he showed, by his policy towards the German Church, that he was the true heir of the Carolingian traditions. He made churchmen his ministers; he established missionary bishoprics on the Elbe which should spread Christianity among the Wends; and his dearest project was a new archbishopric of Magdeburg. The one thing needful was that he should, like Charlemagne, acquire the throne of Italy; and the dissolute condition of that country during the first half of the 10th century made its acquisition not only possible, but almost imperative. Begun in 952, the acquisition was completed ten years later; and all the conditions were now present for Otto's assumption of the imperial throne. He was crowned by John XII. on Candlemas Day 962, and thus was begun the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted henceforth with a continuous life until 1806.[8]

The Empire and feudalism.

The same ideas underlay the new empire which had underlain that of Charlemagne, strengthened and reinforced by the fact that they had already found a visible expression before in that earlier empire. Historically, there was the tradition of the old Roman empire, preserved by the Church as an idea, and preserved in the Church, and its imperial organization, as an actual fact. Ecclesiastically, there was the Pauline conception of a single Christian Church, one in subjection to Christ as its Head, and needing (so men still thought) a secular counterpart of its indivisible unity.[9] To these two sanctions philosophy later added a third; and the doctrine of Realism, that the one universal is the true abiding substance--the doctrine which pervades the _De monarchia_ of Dante,--reinforced the feeling which demanded that Europe should be conceived as a single political unity. But if the Holy Roman empire of the German nation has the old foundations, it is none the less a thing _sui generis_. Externally, it meant far less than the empire of Charlemagne; it meant simply a union of Germany and northern Italy (to which, after 1032, one must also add Burgundy, though the addition is in reality nominal) under a single rule. Historians of the 19th century, during the years in which the modern German empire was in travail, disputed sorely on the advantages of this union; but whatever its advantages or disadvantages, the fact remains that the union of Teutonic Germany and Latin Italy was, from an external point of view, the essential fact in the structure of the medieval Empire. Internally, again, the Empire of the Ottos and their successors was new and unprecedented. If Latin imperialism had been combined with Frankish tribalism in the Empire of Charlemagne, it now met and blended with feudalism. The Holy Roman emperor of the middle ages, as Frederick I. proudly told the Roman envoys, found his senate in the diet of the German baronage, his _equites_ in the ranks of the German knights. Feudalism, indeed, came in time to invade the very conception of Empire itself. The emperors began to believe that their position of emperor made them feudal overlords of other kings and princes; and they came to be regarded as the topmost summit of the feudal pyramid, from whom kings held their kingdoms, while they themselves held directly of God. In this way the old conception of the world as a single political society entered upon a new phase: but the translation of that conception into feudal terms, which might have made Diocletian gasp, only gave it the greater hold on the feudal society of the middle ages. Yet in one way the feudal conception was a source of weakness to the Empire; for the popes, from the middle of the 12th century onwards, began to claim for themselves a feudal overlordship of the world, and to regard the emperor as the chief of their vassals. The theory of the _Translatio_ buttressed their claim to be overlords of the Empire; and the emperors found that their very duty to defend the Papacy turned them into its vassals--for was not the _advocatus_ who defended the lands of an abbey or church its tenant by feudal service, and might not analogy extend the feudal relation to the imperial advocate himself?

The Empire and the Papacy.

The relation of the Empire to the Papacy is indeed the cardinal fact in its history for the three centuries which followed the coronation of Otto I. (962-1250). For a century (962-1076) the relation was one of amity. The pope and the emperor stood as co-ordinate sovereigns, ruling together the commonwealth of Europe.[10] If either stood before the other, the emperor stood before the pope. The Romans had sworn to Otto I. that they would never elect or ordain a pope without his consent; and the rights over papal elections conceived to belong to the office of _patricius_, which they generally held, enabled the emperors, upon occasion, to nominate the pope of their choice. The partnership of Otto III., son of a Byzantine princess, and his nominee Silvester II. (already distinguished as Gerbert, _scholasticus_ of the chapter school of Reims) forms a remarkable page in the annals of Empire and Papacy. Otto, once the pupil of Silvester in classical studies, and taught by his mother the traditions of the Byzantine empire, dreamed of renewing the Empire of Constantine, with Rome itself for its centre; and this antiquarian idealism (which Arnold of Brescia and Cola di Rienzi were afterwards, though with some difference of aim, to share) was encouraged in his pupil by the pope. Tradition afterwards ascribed to the two the first project of a crusade, and the institution of the seven electors: in truth their faces were turned to the past rather than to the future, and they sought not to create, but to renovate. The dream of restoring the age of Constantine passed with the premature death of Otto; and after the death of Silvester II. the papacy was degraded into an appendage of the Tusculan family. From that degradation the Church was rescued by Henry III. (the second emperor of the new Salian house, which reigned from 1024 to 1125), when in 1046 he caused the deposition of three competing popes, and afterwards filled the papal chair with his own nominees; but it was rescued more effectually by itself, when in 1059 the celebrated bull _In nomine Domini_ of Nicholas II. reserved the right of electing the popes to the college of cardinals (see CONCLAVE). A new era of the Papacy begins with the decree, and that era found its exponent in Hildebrand. If under Henry III. the Empire stands in many respects at its zenith, and the emperor nominates to the Papacy, it sinks, under Henry IV., almost to the nadir of its fortunes, and a pope attempts, with no little success, to fight and defeat an emperor.

The Investiture contest.

The rise of the Papacy, which the action of Henry III. in 1046 had helped to begin, and the bull of 1059 had greatly promoted, was ultimately due to an ecclesiastical revival, which goes by the name of the Cluniac movement. The aim of that movement was to separate the Church from the world, and thus to make it independent of the laity and the lay power; and it sought to realize its aim first by the prohibition of clerical marriage and simony, and ultimately by the prohibition of lay investiture. A decree of Gregory VII. in 1075 forbade emperor, king or prince to "presume to give investiture of bishoprics," under pain of excommunication; and Henry IV., contravening the decree, fell under the penalty, and the War of Investitures began (1076-1122). Whether or no Henry humiliated himself at Canossa (and the opinion of German historians now inclines to regard the traditional account as exaggerated) the Empire certainly suffered in his reign a great loss of prestige. The emperor lost his hold over Germany, where the aid of the pope strengthened the hands of the discontented nobility: he lost his hold over Italy, where the Lombard towns gradually acquired municipal independence, and the donation of the Countess Matilda gave the popes the germ of a new and stronger _dominium temporale_. The First Crusade came, and the emperor, its natural leader, could not lead it; while the centre of learning and civilization, in the course of the fifty years' War of Investitures, gradually shifted to France. The struggle was finally ended by a compromise--the Concordat of Worms--in 1122; but the Papacy, which had fought the long War of Investitures and inspired the First Crusade, was a far greater power than it had been at the beginning of the struggle, and the emperor, shaken in his hold on Germany and Italy, had lost both power and prestige (see INVESTITURE). It is significant that a theory of the feudal subjection of the emperor to the pope, foreshadowed in the pontificate of Innocent II., and definitely enounced by the envoys of Adrian IV. at the diet of Besancon in 1157, now begins to arise. The popes, who had called the emperors to be heads of the European commonwealth in 800 and again in 962, begin to vindicate that headship for themselves. Gregory VII. had already claimed that the pope stood to the emperor, as the sun to the moon; and gradually the old co-ordination disappeared in a new subordination of the Empire to the papal _plenitudo potestatis_. The claim of ecclesiastical independence of the middle of the 11th century was rapidly becoming a claim of ecclesiastical supremacy in the middle of the 12th: the imperial claim to nominate popes, which had lasted till 1059, was turning into the papal claim to nominate emperors. Yet at this very time a new period of splendour dawned for the Empire; and the rule of the three Hohenstaufen emperors, Frederick I., Henry VI. and Frederick II. (1152-1250), marks the period of its history which attracts most sympathy and admiration.

The Hohenstaufen emperors.

Overthrow of the Empire in Italy.

Frederick I. regained a new strength in Germany, partly because he united in his veins the blood of the two great contending families, the Welfs and the Waiblingens; partly because he had acquired large patrimonial possessions in Swabia, which took the place of the last Saxon demesne; partly because he had a greater control over the German episcopate than his predecessors had enjoyed for many years past. At the same time the revival of interest in the study of Roman law gave the emperor, as source and centre of that law, a new dignity and prestige, particularly in Italy, the home and hearth of the revival. Confident in this new strength, he attempted to vindicate his claims on Italy, and sought, by uniting the two under his sway, to inspire with new life the old Ottonian Empire. He failed to crush Lombard municipal independence: defeated at Legnano in 1176, he had to recognize his defeat at the treaty of Constance in 1183. He failed to acquire control over the Papacy: a new struggle of Empire and Papacy, begun in the pontificate of Adrian IV. on the question of control over Rome, and continued in the pontificate of Alexander III., because Frederick recognized an anti-pope, ended in the emperor's recognition of his defeat at Venice in 1177. The one success was the acquisition of the Norman kingdom for Henry VI., who was married to its heiress, Constance. But the one success of Frederick's Italian policy proved the ruin of his house in the reign of his grandson Frederick II. On the one hand, the possession of Sicily induced Frederick II. to neglect Germany; and by two documents, one of 1220 and one of 1231, he practically abdicated his sovereign powers to the German princes in order to conciliate their support for his Italian policy. On the other hand, the possession of Sicily involved him in the third great struggle of Empire and Papacy. Strong in his Sicilian kingdom in the south, and seeking, like his grandfather, to establish his power in Lombardy, Frederick practically aimed at the unification of Italy, a policy which threatened to engulf the States of the Church and to reduce the Papacy to impotence. The popes excommunicated the emperor: they aided the Lombard towns to maintain their independence; finally, after Frederick's death (1250), they summoned Charles of Anjou into Sicily to exterminate his house. By 1268 he had done his work, and the medieval Empire was practically at an end. When Rudolph of Habsburg succeeded in 1273, he was only the head of a federation of princes in Germany, while in Italy he abandoned all claims over the centre and south, and only retained titular rights in the Lombard plain.

Thus ended the first great chapter in the history of the Holy Roman Empire which Otto had founded in 962. In those three centuries the great fact had been its relation to the Papacy: in the last two of those three centuries the relation had been one of enmity. The basis of the enmity had been the papal claim to supreme headship of Latin Christianity, and to an independent temporal demesne in Italy as the condition of that headship. Because they desired supreme headship, the popes had sought to reduce the emperor's headship to something lower than, and dependent upon, their own--to a mere fief held of St Peter: because they desired a temporal demesne, they had sought to expel him from Italy, since any imperial hold on Italy threatened their independence. They had succeeded in defeating the Empire, but they had also destroyed the Papacy; for the French aid which they had invoked against the Hohenstaufen developed, within fifty years of the fall of that house, into French control, and the captivity at Avignon (1308-1378) was the logical result of the final victory of Charles of Anjou at Tagliacozzo. The struggle seemed to have ended in nothing but the exhaustion of both combatants. Yet in many respects it had in reality made for progress. It had set men thinking of the respective limits of church and state, as the many _libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum_ show; and from that thought had issued a new conception of the state, as existing in its own right and supreme in its own sphere, a conception which is the necessary basis of the modern nation-state. If it had dislocated Germany into a number of territorial principalities, it had produced a college of electors to represent the cause of unity: if it had helped to prevent the unification of Italy, and had left to Italy the fatal legacy of Guelph and Ghibelline feuds, it had equally helped to produce Italian municipal independence.

The Empire from the election of Rudolph of Habsburg, 1273.

A new chapter of the history of the Empire fills the three centuries from 1273 to 1556--from the accession of Rudolph of Habsburg to the abdication of Charles V. Italy was now lost: the Empire had now no peculiar connexion with Rome, and far less touch with the Papacy. A new Germany had risen. The extinction of several royal stocks and the nomination of anti-kings in the course of civil wars had made the monarchy elective, and raised to the side of the emperor a college of electors (see ELECTORS), which appears as definitely established soon after 1250. With Italy lost, and Germany thus transmuted, why should the Empire have still continued to exist? In the first place, it continued to exist because the Germans still found a king necessary and because, the German king having been called for three centuries emperor, it seemed necessary that he should still continue to bear the name. In this sense the Empire existed as the presidency of a Germanic confederation, and as something analogous to the modern German empire, with the one great difference that the Hohenzollerns now derive from Prussia a strength which enables them to make their imperial position a reality, while no Luxemburg or Habsburg was able to make his imperial position otherwise than honorary and nominal. In the second place, it continued to exist because the conception of the unity of western Europe still lingered, and was still conceived to need an exponent. In this sense the Empire existed as a presidency, still more honorary and still more nominal, of the nations of western Europe. In both capacities the emperor existed to a great extent because he was a legal necessity--because, in Germany, he was necessary for the investiture of princes with their principalities, and because, in Europe, he was necessary, as the source of all rights, to bestow crowns upon would-be kings, or to act as the head of the great orders of chivalry, or to give patents to notaries. With the history of the Empire regarded as a German confederation we are not here concerned. The reigns of the Habsburg, Luxemburg and Wittelsbach emperors belong to the history of Germany. Yet two of these emperors, Henry VII. and Louis IV., should not pass without notice, the one for his own sake, the other for the sake of his adherents, and both because, by interfering in Italy, and coming into conflict with the Papacy, they brought once more into prominence the European aspect of the Empire.

Henry VII., the contemporary and the hero of Dante, descended into Italy in 1310, partly because he had no power and no occupation in Germany, partly because he was deeply imbued with the sense of his imperial dignity. Coming as a peacemaker and mediator, he was driven by Guelph opposition into a Ghibelline role; and he came into conflict with Clement V., the first of the Avignonese popes, who under the pressure of France attempted to enforce upon Henry a recognition of his feudal subjection. Henry asserted his independence: he claimed Rome for his capital, and the lordship of the world for his right; but, just as a struggle seemed impending, he died, in 1313. During the reign of his successor, Louis IV., the struggle came. Louis had been excommunicated by John XXII. in 1324 for acting as emperor before he had received papal recognition. None the less, in 1328, he came to Rome for his coronation. He had gathered round him strange allies; on the one hand, the more advanced Franciscans, apostles of the cause of clerical disendowment, and inimical to a wealthy papacy; on the other hand, jurists like Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun, who brought to the cause of Louis the spirit and the doctrines which had already been used in the struggle between Boniface VIII. and Philip IV. of France. Marsilius in particular, in a treatise called the _Defensor Pacis_, insisted on the majesty of the lay state, and even on its superiority to the Church. Perhaps it was Marsilius, learned as he was in Roman law, and remembering the _lex regia_ by which the Roman people had of old conferred its power on the emperor, who suggested to Louis the policy, which he followed, of receiving the imperial crown by the decree and at the hands of the Roman people. The policy was remarkable: Louis embraced an alliance which Frederick Barbarossa had spurned, and recognized the medieval Romans as the source of imperial power. Not less remarkable was the new attitude of the German electors, who for the first time supported an emperor against the pope, because they now felt menaced in their own electoral rights; and the one permanent result which finally flowed from the struggle was the enunciation and definition of the rights and privileges of the electors in the Golden Bull of 1356 (see GOLDEN BULL).

The Empire and the rise of the idea of national states.

In this struggle with the Papacy the Empire had shown something of its old universal aspect. It had come into connexion with Italy, and into close connexion with Rome: it had enlisted in defence of its rights at once an Italian like Marsilius and an Englishman like Ockham. The same universal aspect appeared once more in the age of the conciliar movement, at the beginning of the 15th century. One of the essential duties of the emperor, as defender of the Church, was to help the assembling and the deliberations of general councils of the Church. This was the duty discharged by Sigismund, when he forced John XXIII. to summon a council at Constance in 1414, and sought, though in vain, to guide its deliberations. The journey which Sigismund undertook in the interests of the council (1415-1417) is particularly noteworthy. He sought to make peace throughout western Europe, acting as international arbitrator--in virtue of his presidency of western Europe--between England and France, between Burgundians and Armagnacs; but he failed in his aim, and when he returned to the council, it was only to witness the defeat of the party of reform which he championed. National feeling and national antipathies proved too strong for Sigismund's attempt to revive the medieval empire for the purposes of international arbitration: the same feeling, the same antipathies, made inevitable the failure of the council itself, in which western Europe had sought to meet once more as a single religious commonwealth. Early in the 15th century, therefore, the conception of the unity of western Europe, as a single Empire-Church, was already waning in both its aspects. The unity of the Church Universal was dissolving, and the conception of the nation-church arising (as the separate concordats granted by Martin V. to the different nations prove); while the unity of the Empire was proved a dream, by the powerlessness of the emperor in the face of the struggle of England and France.

Influence of the Reformation.

Renaissance and Reformation combined to complete the fall which the failure of Sigismund to guide the conciliar movement had already foreshadowed. The Renaissance, revolting against the medievalism of the _studium_ and not sparing even the _sacerdotium_ of the middle ages, had little respect for the medieval _imperium_; and, going back to pure Latin and original Greek, it went back beyond even the classical empire to find its ideals and inspirations. But it is the coming of the Reformation, and with it of the nation-church, which finally marks the epoch at which the last vestige of the old conception of the political unity of the world disappears before the nation-state. Externally indeed it seemed, at the time of the Reformation, as if the old Empire had been revived in the person of Charles V., who owned territories as vast as those of Charlemagne. But Charles's dominions were a dynastic agglomeration, knit together by no vivifying conception; and, though Charles was a champion of the one Catholic Church against the Reformation, he did not in any way seek to revive the power of the medieval empire. Meanwhile the reforming monarchs, while they cast off the Roman Church, cast off with it the Roman empire. Henry VIII. declared himself free, not only of the pope, but of all other foreign power; not only so, but as he sought to take the place of the pope with regard to his own church, so he sought to take the place of the emperor with regard to his kingdom, and spoke of his "imperial" crown, a style which recurs in later Tudor reigns.[11] The conception of one Empire passed out of Europe, or, if it remained, it remained only in an honorary precedence accorded by other sovereigns to the king of Germany, who still entitled himself emperor. In Germany itself the honorary presidency which the emperor enjoyed over the princes came to mean still less than before, when religious differences divided the country, and the principle of _cujus regio ejus religio_ accentuated the local autonomy of the prince. When Charles abdicated in 1556, the change which the accession of Rudolph of Habsburg had already marked was complete: there was no empire except in Germany, and in Germany the Empire was nothing more than a convenient legal conception. The Reformation, by sweeping away the spiritual unity of western Christendom, had swept away any real conception of its political unity, and with that conception it had swept away the Empire; while it had also, by splitting Germany into two religious camps, and making the emperor at the most the head of a religious faction, dissipated the last vestiges of a real Empire in the country which had, since 962, been its peculiar home.

The Empire as a German confederation.

From 1556 to 1806 the Empire means a loose federation of the different princes of Germany, lay and ecclesiastical, under the presidency, elective in theory but hereditary in practice, of the house of Habsburg. It is an empire much in the same sense as the modern German empire, with a diet somewhat analogous to the modern Bundesrat, and a cumbrous imperial chamber for purposes of justice, hardly at all analogous to the highly organized system of federal justice which prevails in Germany to-day. The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire into this loose federation had already been anticipated by the concessions made to the princes by Frederick II. in 1220 and 1231; but the final organization of Germany on federal lines was only attained in the treaty of Westphalia of 1648. The attempt of Ferdinand II., in the course of the Thirty Years' War, to assert a practically monarchical authority over the princes of Germany, only led to the regular vindication by the princes of their own monarchical authority. The emperor, who had tried in the 15th century to be the international authority of all Europe, now sank to the position of less than inter-state arbitrator in Germany. That the Empire and the emperor were retained at all, when the princes became so many independent sovereigns, was due partly to a lingering sense of quasi-national sentiment for a _magni nominis umbra_, partly to the need of some authority which should combine in one whole principalities of very different sizes and strengths, and should protect the weak from the strong, and all from France. But this authority only found its _symbol_ in the emperor. Such real federal authority as there was remained with the diet, a congress of sovereign princes through their accredited representatives; and the emperor's sole rights, as emperor, were those of granting titles and confirming tolls. The Habsburgs, emperors in each successive generation, never pursued an imperial, but always a dynastic policy; and they were perfectly ready to sacrifice to the aggrandizement of their house the honour of the Empire, as when they ceded Lorraine to France in return for Tuscany (1735).

End of the Holy Roman Empire.

It needed the cataclysm of the French Revolution finally to overthrow the Empire. Throughout the 18th century it lasted, a thing of long-winded protocols and never-ending lawsuits, "neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire." But with Napoleon came its destroyer. As far back as the end of the 13th century, French kings had been scheming to annex the title or at any rate absorb the territories of the Empire: at the beginning of the 19th century the annexation of the title by Napoleon seemed very imminent. Posing as the New Charlemagne ("because, like Charlemagne, I unite the crown of France to that of the Lombards, and my Empire marches with the East"), he resolved in 1806, during the dissolution and recomposition of Germany which followed the peace of Luneville, to oust Francis II. from his title, and to make the Holy Roman Empire part and parcel of the "Napoleonic idea." He was anticipated, however, by the prompt action of the proud Habsburg, who was equally resolved that no other should wear the crown which he himself was powerless to defend, and accordingly, on the 6th of August 1806, Francis resigned the imperial dignity. So perished the Empire. Out of its ashes sprang the Austrian Empire, for Francis, in 1804, partly to counter Napoleon's assumption of the title of Emperor of the French, partly to prepare for the impending dissolution of the old Empire, had assumed the title of "Hereditary Emperor of Austria." And in yet more recent times the German empire may be regarded, in a still more real sense than Austria, as the descendant and representative of the old Empire of the German nation.

General influence of the Empire.

What had been the results of the Holy Roman Empire, in the course of its long history, upon Germany and upon Europe? It has been a _vexata quaestio_ among German historians, whether or no the Empire ruined Germany. Some have argued that it diverted the attention of the German kings from their own country to Italy, and that, by bringing them into conflict with the popes, and by thus strengthening the hands of their rebellious baronage with a papal alliance, it prevented the development of a national German monarchy, such as other sovereigns of western Europe were able to found. Others again have emphasized the racial division of Saxon and Frank, of High German and Low German, as the great cause of the failure of Germany to grow into a united national whole, and have sought to ascribe to the influence of the Empire such unity as was achieved; while they have attributed the learning, the trade, the pre-eminence of medieval Germany to the Italian connexion and the prestige which the Empire brought. It is difficult to pronounce on either side; but one feels that the old localism and individualism which characterized the early German, and had never, on German soil, been combined with and counteracted by a large measure of Roman population and Roman civilization, as they were in Gaul and Spain, would in any case have continued to divide and disturb Germany till late in her history, even if the Empire had never come to reside within her borders. Of the larger question of the influence of the Empire on Europe we can here only say that it worked for good. An Empire which represented, as a Holy Empire, the unity of all the faithful as one body in their secular, no less than in their religious life--an Empire which, again, as a Roman Empire, represented with an unbroken continuity the order of Roman administration and law--such an empire could not but make for the betterment of the world. It was not an empire resting on force, a military empire; it was not, as in modern times empires have sometimes been, an autocracy warranted and stamped by the plebiscite of the mob. It was an empire resting neither on the sword nor on the ballot-box, but on two great ideas, taught by the clergy and received by the laity, that all believers in Christ form one body politic, and that the one model and type for the organization of that body is to be found in the past of Rome. It was indeed the weakness of the Empire that its roots were only the thoughts of men; for the lack of material force, from which it always suffered, hindered it from doing work it might well have done--the work, for instance, of international arbitration. Yet, on the other hand, it was the strength and glory of the Empire that it lived, all through the middle ages, an unconquerable idea of the mind of man. Because it was a being of their thought, it stirred men to reflection: the Empire, particularly in its clash with the Papacy, produced a political consciousness and a political speculation reflected for us in the many _libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum_, and in the pages of Dante and Marsilius of Padua. Roman, it perpetuated the greatest monument of Roman thought--that ordered scheme of law, which either became, as in England, the model for the building of a native system, or, as in Germany from the end of the 15th century onwards, was received in its integrity and administered in the courts. Holy, it fortified and consolidated Christian thought, by giving a visible expression to the kingdom of God upon earth; and not only so, but it maintained, however imperfectly, some idea of international obligation, and some conception of a commonwealth of Europe.[12]

The Holy Roman Empire of western Europe had in its own day a contemporary and a rival--that east Roman empire of which we have already spoken. From Arcadius to John Palaeologus, from A.D. 395 to 1453, the Roman empire was continued at Constantinople--not as a theory and an idea, but as a simple and daily reality of politics and administration. In one sense the East Roman Empire was more lineally and really Roman than the West: it was absolutely continuous from ancient times. In another sense the Western Empire was the most Roman; for its capital--in theory at least--was Rome itself, and the Roman Church stood by its side, while Constantinople was Hellenic and even Oriental. Between the two Empires there was fixed an impassable gulf; and they were divided by deep differences of thought and temper, which appeared most particularly in the sphere of religion, and expressed themselves in the cleavage between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. Yet, as when Rome fell, the Catholic Church survived, and ultimately found for itself a new Empire of the West, so, when Constantinople fell, the Orthodox Church continued its life, and found for itself a new Empire of the East--the Empire of Russia. Under Ivan the Great (1462-1505) Moscow became the metropolis of Orthodoxy; Byzantine law influenced his code; and he took for his cognizance the double-headed eagle. Ivan the Terrible, his grandson, finally assumed in 1547 the title of Tsar; and henceforth the Russian emperor is, in theory and very largely in fact, the successor of the old East Roman emperor,[13] the head of the Orthodox Church, with the mission of vengeance on Islam for the fall of Constantinople.

Modern Empires.

In the 19th century the word "empire" has had a large and important bearing in politics. In France it has been the apanage of the Bonapartes, and has meant a centralized system of government by an efficient Caesar, resting immediately on the people, and annihilating the powers of the people's representatives. Under Napoleon I. this conception had a Carolingian colour: under Napoleon III. there is less of Carolingianism, and more of Caesarism--more of a popular dictatorship. While in modern France Empire has meant autocracy instead of representative government, in Germany it has meant a greater national unity and a federal government in the place of a confederation. The modern German empire is at once like and unlike the old Holy Roman Empire. It is unlike the old medieval Empire; for it has no connexion with the Catholic Church, and no relation to Rome. But it is like the Holy Roman Empire of the 17th and 18th centuries--for it represents a federation, but a more real and more unitary federation, of the several states of Germany. The likeness is perhaps more striking than the dissimilarity; and in virtue of this likeness, and because the memory of the old German _Kaiserzeit_ was a driving force in 1870, we may speak of the modern German empire as the successor of the old Holy Roman Empire, if we remember that we are speaking of that Empire in its last two centuries of existence. The modern "Empire of Austria," on the other hand, does not connote an empire in the sense of a federation, but is a convenient designation for the sum of the territories ruled by a single sovereign under various titles (king of Bohemia, archduke of Austria, &c.) and unified in a single political system.[14] The title of Emperor was assumed, as we have seen, through an historical accident; and, though the Habsburgs of to-day are personally the lineal descendants of the old Holy Roman emperors, they do not in any way possess an empire that represents the old Holy Empire. In England, of recent years, the term "Empire" and the conception of imperialism have become prominent and crucial. To Englishmen to-day, as to Germans before 1870, the term and the conception stand for the greater unity and definitely federal government of a number of separate states. For the German, indeed, Empire has meant, in great measure, the strengthening of a loose federal institution by the addition of a common personal superior: to us it means the turning of a loose union of separate states already under a common personal superior--the King--into a federal commonwealth living under some common federal institutions. But the aim is much the same; it is the integration of a people under a single scheme which shall be consistent with a large measure of political autonomy. We speak of imperial federation; and indeed our modern imperialism is closely allied to federalism. Yet we do well to cling to the term empire rather than federation; for the one term emphasizes the whole and its unity, the other the part and its independence. This imperialism, which is federalism viewed as making for a single whole, is very different from that Bonapartist imperialism, which means autocracy; for its essence is free co-ordination, and the self-government of each co-ordinated part. The British Empire (q.v.) is, in a sense, an aspiration rather than a reality, a thought rather than a fact; but, just for that reason, it is like the old Empire of which we have spoken; and though it be neither Roman nor Holy, yet it has, like its prototype, one law, if not the law of Rome--one faith, if not in matters of religion, at any rate in the field of political and social ideals.

Authorities.--See, in the first place, J. Bryce, _Holy Roman Empire_ (1904 edition); J. von Dollinger, article on "The Empire of Charles the Great" (in _Essays on Historical and Literary Subjects_, translated by Margaret Warre, 1894); H. Fisher, _The Medieval Empire_ (1898); E. Gibbon, _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, edited by J.B. Bury. It would be impossible to refer to all the books bearing on the article, but one may select (i.) for the period down to 476, Stuart Jones, _The Roman Empire_ (1908), an excellent brief sketch; H. Schiller, _Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit_ (1883-1888); O. Seeck, _Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt_ (Band I., Berlin, 1897-1898, Band II., 1901) (a remarkable and stimulating book); and the two excellent articles on "Imperium" and "Princeps" in Smith's _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities_ (1890); (ii.) for the period from 476 down to 888, T. Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_ (1880-1900); F. Gregorovius, _Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter_ (1886-1894; Eng. trans., London, 1894-1900); E. Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, II. i. (1901); J.B. Bury, _History of the Later Roman Empire_ (1889); (iii.) for the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, W. von Giesebrecht, _Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit_ (1881-1890); J. Zeller, _Histoire d'Allemagne_ (1872-1891); R.L. Poole, _Illustrations of Medieval Thought_ (1884); S. Riezler, _Die literarischen Widersacher der Papste zur Zeit Ludwigs des Baiers_ (1874); J. Jannsen, _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters_ (1885-1894); L. von Ranke, _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation_ (1839-1847), and _Zur deutschen Geschichte_. _Vom Religionsfrieden bis zum dreissigjahrigen Krieg_ (1869); and T. Carlyle, _Frederick the Great_ (1872-1873). On the fall of the Roman Empire and the transition to the modern German Empire see Sir J.R. Seeley, _Life and Times of Stein_ (1878); H. von Treitschke, _Deutsche Geschichte_ (1879-1894); and H. von Sybel, _Die Begrundung des deutschen Reichs_ (1890-1894, Eng. trans., _The Founding of the Germ. Emp._, New York, 1890-1891). For institutional history, see R. Schroder, _Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte_ (1894). On the influence of the Holy Roman Empire upon the history of Germany, see J. Ficker, _Das deutsche Kaiserreich_ (1861), and _Deutsches Konigtum und Kaisertum_ (1862); and H. von Sybel, _Die deutsche Nation und das Kaiserreich_ (1861). (E. Br.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Bryce points out, with much subtlety and truth, that the rise of a second Rome in the East not only helped to perpetuate the Empire by providing a new centre which would take the place of Rome when Rome fell, but also tended to make it more universal; "for, having lost its local centre, it subsisted no longer by historic right only, but, so to speak, naturally, as a part of an order of things which a change in external conditions seemed incapable of disturbing" (_Holy Roman Empire_, p. 8 of the edition of 1904).

[2] The _de facto_ importance of the event of 476 can only be seen in the light of later events, and it was not therefore noticed by contemporaries. Marcellinus is the only contemporary who remarks on its importance, cf. _Marcellini Chronicon_ (_Mon. Germ. Hist., Chronica minora._ ii. 91), _Hesperium Romanae gentis imperium ... cum hoc Augustulo periit ... Gothorum dehinc regibus Romam tenentibus._

[3] A passage in Malchus, a Byzantine historian (quoted by Bryce, _Holy Roman Empire_, p. 25, note _u_, in the edition of 1904), expresses this truth exactly. The envoys sent to Zeno by Odoacer urge [Greek: os hidias men autois basileias ou deoi koinos de hapochresei monos on autokrator hep amphoterois tois perasi]. The envoys then suggest the name of Odoacer, as one able to manage their affairs, and ask Zeno to give him, _as an officer of the Empire_, the title of Patricius and the administration of Italy.

[4] According to the view here followed, the Church was the ark in which the conception of Empire was saved during the dark ages between 600 and 800. Some influence should perhaps also be assigned to Roman law, which continued to be administered during these centuries, especially in the towns, and maintained the imperial tradition. But the influence of the Church is the essential fact.

[5] In the 5th century the title _patricius_ came to attach particularly to the head of the Roman army (_magister utriusque militiae_) to men like Aetius and Ricimer, who made and unmade emperors (cf. Mommsen, _Gesammelte Schriften_, iv. 537, 545 sqq.). Later it had been borne by the Greek exarchs of Ravenna. The concession to Pippin of this great title makes him military head of the Western empire, in the sense in which the title was used in the 5th century; it makes him representative of the Empire for Italy, in the sense in which it had been used of the exarchs.

[6] See the famous bull _Venerabilem_ (_Corp. Jur. Canon._ Decr. Greg. i. 6, c. 34).

[7] Even on this view, an imperial coronation at the hands of the pope was necessary to complete the title; but this was regarded by the Germans (though not by the pope) as a form which necessarily followed.

[8] It is a curious fact that imperial titles (_imperator_ and _basileus_) are used in the Anglo-Saxon diplomata of the 10th century. Edred, for instance (946-955) is "imperator," "cyning and casere totius Britanniae," "basileus Anglorum hujusque insulae barbarorum": Edgar is "totius Albionis imperator Augustus" (cf. Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. c. vii. S 71). These titles partly show the turgidity of English Latinity in the 10th century, partly indicate the quasi-imperial position held by the Wessex kings after the reconquest of the Dane-law. But there seems to be no real ground for Freeman's view (_Norman Conquest_, i. 548 sqq.), that England was regarded as a third Empire, side by side with the other Empires of West and East Europe. That the titles were assumed in order to repudiate possible claims of the Western Empire to the overlordship of England is disproved by the fact that they are assumed at a time when there is no Western emperor. The assumption of an imperial style by Henry VIII., which is mentioned below, is explained by the Reformation, and does not mean any recurrence to a forgotten Anglo-Saxon style.

[9] It is in virtue of this aspect that the Empire is holy. The term _sacrum imperium_ seems to have been first used about the time of Frederick I., when the emperors were anxious to magnify the sanctity of their office in answer to papal opposition. The emperor himself (see under EMPEROR) was always regarded, and at his coronation treated, as a _persona ecclesiastica_.

[10] The emperor claimed suzerainty over the greater part of Europe at various dates. Hungary and Poland, France and Spain, the Scandinavian peninsula, the British Isles, were all claimed for the Empire at different times (see Bryce, _Holy Roman Empire_, c. xii.). The "effective" empire, if indeed it may be called effective, embraced only Germany, Burgundy and the _regnum Italiae_ (the old Lombard kingdom in the valley of the Po).

[11] Cf. the Act 25 Henry VIII. c. 22, S 1: "the lawful kings and emperors of this realm."

[12] The Papacy, consistent to the last, formally protested at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 against the failure of the Powers to restore the Holy Roman Empire, the "centre of political unity" (Ed.).

[13] The Turks, occupying Constantinople, have also claimed to be the heirs of the old emperors of Constantinople; and their sultans have styled themselves _Keisar-i-Rum_.

[14] This does not, of course, apply to Hungary, which since 1867 has not formed part of the Austrian empire and is ruled by the head of the house of Habsburg not as emperor, but as king of Hungary.

EMPIRICISM (from Gr. [Greek: empeiros], skilled in, from [Greek: peira], experiment), in philosophy, the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-given data. It is opposed to all forms of intuitionalism, and holds that the mind is originally an absolute blank (_tabula rasa_), on which, as it were, sense-given impressions are mechanically recorded, without any action on the part of the mind. The process by which the mind is thus stored consists of an infinity of individual impressions. The frequent or invariable recurrence of similar series of events gives birth in the mind to what are wrongly called "laws"; in fact, these "laws" are merely statements of experience gathered together by association, and have no other kind of validity. In other words from the empirical standpoint the statement of such a "law" does not contain the word "must"; it merely asserts that such and such series have been invariably observed. In this theory there can strictly be no "causation"; one thing is observed to succeed another, but observations cannot assert that it is "caused" by that thing; it is _post hoc_, but not _propter hoc_. The idea of _necessary_ connexion is a purely mental idea, an a priori conception, in which observation of empirical data takes no part; empiricism in ethics likewise does away with the idea of the absolute authority of the moral law as conceived by the intuitionalists. The moral law is merely a collection of rules of conduct based on an infinite number of special cases in which the convenience of society or its rulers has subordinated the inclination of individuals. The fundamental objection to empiricism is that it fails to give an accurate explanation of experience; individual impressions as such are momentary, and their connexion into a body of coherent knowledge presupposes mental action distinct from mere receptivity. Empiricism was characteristic of all early speculation in Greece. During the middle ages the empiric spirit was in abeyance, but it revived from the time of Francis Bacon and was systematized especially in the English philosophers, Locke, Hume, the two Mills, Bentham and the associationist school generally.

See ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS; METAPHYSICS; PSYCHOLOGY; LOGIC; besides the biographies of the empirical philosophers.

_In medicine_, the term is applied to a school of physicians who, in the time of Celsus and Galen, advocated accurate observation of the phenomena of health and disease in the belief that only by the collection of a vast mass of instances would a true science of medicine be attained. This point of view was carried to extremes by those who discarded all real study, and based their treatment on rules of thumb. Hence the modern sense of empirical as applied to the guess work of an untrained quack or charlatan.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY, and WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.[1] The law of England as to the liability of employers in respect of personal injuries to their servants is regulated partly by the common law and partly by statute; but by the Employers' Liability Act 1880, such exceptions have been grafted upon the common law, and by the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, principles so alien to the common law have been applied to most employments that it is impossible now to present any view of this branch of the law as a logical whole. All that can be done is to state the nature of the liability at common law. the extension of it effected by the Employers' Liability Act 1880, and the new liabilities introduced by later acts.

Common law.

At common law the liability of a master is of a very limited character. There is, of course, nothing to prevent a master and servant from providing by special contract in any way they please for their mutual rights in cases of personal injury to the servant. In such cases the liability will depend upon the terms of the special contract. But apart from any special agreement, it may be broadly stated that a master is liable to his servants only for injuries caused by his own negligence. Injuries to a servant may arise from accident, from the nature of the service, or from negligence; and this negligence may be of the master, of another servant of the master, or of a stranger. If the injury is purely accidental the loss lies where it falls. If it arises from the nature of the service, the servant must bear it himself; he has undertaken a service to which certain risks are necessarily incident; if he is injured thereby, it is the fortune of war, and no one can be made responsible. If the injury is caused by the negligence of a stranger, the servant has his ordinary remedy against the wrong-doer or any one who is responsible as a principal for the conduct of the wrong-doer. If it is caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, he likewise has his ordinary remedy against the actual wrong-doer; but, by virtue of what is known as the doctrine of common employment, he cannot at common law make the master liable as a principal. The only case (independently of modern legislation: _see below_) in which he can recover damages from the master is where the injury has been caused by negligence of the master himself. A master is negligent if he fails to exercise that skill and care which, in the circumstances of the particular employment, are used by employers of ordinary skill and carefulness. If he himself takes part in the work, he must act with such skill and care as may reasonably be demanded of one who takes upon himself to do work of that kind. If he entrusts the work to other servants, he must be careful in their selection, and must not negligently employ persons who are incompetent. He must take proper care so to arrange the system of work that his servants are not exposed to unnecessary danger. If tools or machinery are used, he must take proper care to provide such as are fit and proper for the work, and must either himself see that they are maintained in a fit condition or employ competent servants to do so for him. If he is bound by statute to take precautions for the safety of his servants, he must himself see that that obligation is discharged. For breach of any of these duties a master is liable to his servant who is injured thereby, but his liability extends no further.

Common employment.

That his obligations to a servant are so much less than to a stranger is chiefly due to the doctrine of common employment. As a rule a master is responsible for the negligence of his servant acting in the course of his employment; but, from about the middle of the 19th century, it became firmly rooted in the law that this principle did not apply where the person injured was himself a servant of the master and engaged in a common employment with the servant guilty of the negligence. In effect this rule protects a master as against his servant from the consequences of negligence on the part of any other of his servants; to this there is no qualification except that, for the rule to apply, both the injured and the negligent servant must be acting in pursuance of a common employment. They must both be working for a common object though not necessarily upon the same work.

It is not easy to define precisely what constitutes a common employment in this sense, and there is peculiarly little judicial authority as to the limit at which work for the same employer ceases to be work in a common employment. It does not depend on difference in grade; all engaged in one business, from the manager to the apprentice, are within the rule. It does not depend on difference in work, if the work each is doing is part of one larger operation; all the servants of a railway company, whether employed on the trains, or at the stations, or on the line, are in a common employment. It does not necessarily depend on difference of locality; a servant who packs goods at the factory and a servant who unpacks them in the shop may well be in a common employment. On the other hand, it is not enough that the two servants are working for the same employer, if there is nothing in common between them except that they are making money for the same man; apart from special circumstances, the crews of two ships owned by the same company are probably not in common employment while navigating their respective ships. The test in each case must be derived from the view, invented by the courts, upon which the doctrine was based, namely, that the servant by entering upon the service consented to run all the risks incidental to it, including the risk of negligence on the part of fellow-servants; if the relation between the two servants is such that the safety of the one may, in the ordinary course of things, be affected by the negligence of the other, that negligence must be taken to be one of the risks of the employment assented to by the servant, and both are engaged in a common employment. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it will be found that the doctrine is applicable, and the master protected from liability. It is thus seen that, in general, no action will lie against a master at the suit of his servant, unless the servant can prove personal negligence on the part of the master causing injury to the servant. And in such action the master may avail himself of those defences which he has against a stranger. He may rely upon contributory negligence, and show that the servant was himself negligent, and that, notwithstanding the negligence of the master, the injury was proximately caused by the negligence of the servant. Or (except in cases where the injury results from a breach of a statutory duty) he may prove such facts as establish the defence expressed in the maxim, _volenti non fit injuria_; that is, he may prove that the injured servant knew and appreciated the particular risk he was running, and incurred it voluntarily with full understanding of its nature. Mere knowledge on the part of the servant, or even his continuing to work with knowledge, does not necessarily establish this defence; it must be knowledge of such a kind and in such circumstances that it can be inferred that the servant contracted to take the risk upon himself. The action at common law is subject to the general rule that personal actions die with the person; except so far as the remedy for money loss caused by death by negligence has been preserved in favour of a husband or wife and certain near relatives, under Lord Campbell's Act (Fatal Accidents Act 1846).

The act of 1880.

Such was the law up to 1880. So long as industry was conducted on a small scale, and the master worked with his men, or was himself the manager, its hardship was perhaps little felt; his personal negligence could in many cases be established. But with the development of the factory system, and the ever-growing expansion of the scale on which all industries were conducted, it became increasingly difficult to bring home individual responsibility to the employer. As industry passed largely into the control of corporations, difficulty became almost impossibility. The employer was not liable to a servant for the negligence of a fellow-servant, and therefore, in most cases of injury, was not liable at all. It is not surprising that the condition of things thus brought about, partly by the growth of modern industry and partly by the decisions of the courts, caused grave dissatisfaction. The justice of the doctrine of common employment was vigorously called in question. In the result the Employers' Liability Act 1880 was passed. The effect of this act is to destroy the defence of common employment in certain specified cases. It does not abolish the doctrine altogether, nor, on the other hand, does it impose upon the master any new standard of duty which does not exist as regards strangers. All that it does is to place the servant, in certain cases, in the position of a stranger, making the master liable for the negligence of his servants notwithstanding the fact that they are in common employment with the servant injured. It is still necessary under the act, as at common law, to prove negligence, and the master may still rely upon the defences of contributory negligence and _volenti non fit injuria_. But under the act he cannot, as against the workmen who come within it and in the cases to which it applies, set up the defence that the negligence complained of was the negligence of a servant in a common employment. The act does not apply to all servants. It does not apply to domestic or menial servants, or to seamen, or to any except railway servants and "any person who, being a labourer, servant in husbandry, journeyman, artificer, handicraftsman, miner, or otherwise engaged in _manual_ labour ... has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract be oral or in writing, and be a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour." Whether a servant, not being one of those specially named, is within the act depends on whether manual labour is the real and substantial employment, or whether it is merely incidental thereto; thus a carman who handles the goods he carries may be within the act, but a tramcar driver or an omnibus conductor is not. The act does not make the master liable for the negligence of all his servants, but, speaking generally, only for the negligent discharge of their duties by such as are entrusted with the supervision of machinery and plant, or with superintendence, or the power of giving orders, with the addition, in the case of a railway, of the negligence of those who are given the charge or control of signals, points, locomotive engines or trains. The cases dealt with by the act are five in number; in the first and fourth the words are wide enough to include negligence of the employer himself, for which, as has been seen, he is liable at common law. In such instances the workman has an alternative remedy either at common law or under the act, but in all other respects the rights given by the act are new, being limitations upon the defence of common employment, and can be enforced only under the act.

The first case is where the injury is caused by reason of any defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery or plant connected with or used in the business of the employer, provided that such defect arises from, or has not been discovered or remedied owing to the negligence of the employer, or of some person in the service of the employer and entrusted by him with the duty of seeing that the ways, works, machinery or plant are in proper condition. The second case is where the injury is caused by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who has any superintendence entrusted to him (that is, a person whose sole or principal duty is that of superintendence, and who is not ordinarily engaged in manual labour) whilst in the exercise of such superintendence. The third case is where the injury is caused by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer to whose orders or directions the workman at the time of the injury is bound to conform and does conform, where such injury results from his so conforming. The fourth case is where the injury is caused by reason of the act or omission of any person in the service of the employer done or made in obedience to the rules or by-laws of the employer, or in obedience to particular instructions given by any person delegated with the authority of the employer in that behalf, provided that the injury results from some impropriety or defect in such rules, by-laws or instructions. The fifth case is where the injury is caused by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who has the charge or control of any signal, points, locomotive engine or train upon a railway.

In all these cases it is provided that the employer shall not be liable if it can be shown that the workman knew of the defect or negligence which caused his injury, and failed within a reasonable time to give, or cause to be given, information thereof to the employer or some person superior to himself in the service of the employer, unless he was aware that the employer or such superior already knew of the said defect or negligence. It was inevitable that these provisions should call for judicial interpretation, and a considerable body of authority has grown up about the act. Where general words are used, it must always occur that, between the cases which are obviously within and those which are obviously without the words, there are many on the border line. Thus, under the act, the courts have been called upon to determine the precise meaning of "way," "works," "machinery," "plant," and to say what is precisely meant by a "defect" in the condition of each of them. They have had to say what is included in "railway" and in "train," what is meant by having "charge" or "control," and to what extent one whose principal duty is superintendence may participate in manual labour without losing his character of superintendent, and what is the precise meaning of negligence in superintendence. These are only illustrations of many points of detail which, having called for judicial interpretation, will be found fully dealt with in the text-books on the subject. A workman who, being within the act, is injured by such negligence of a fellow-servant as is included in one or other of the five cases mentioned above, has against his employer the remedies which the act gives him. These are not necessarily the same as those which a stranger would have in the like circumstances; the amount of compensation is not left at large for a jury to determine, but is limited to an amount not exceeding such sum as may be found to be equivalent to the estimated earnings, during the three years preceding the injury, of a person in the same grade employed during those years in the like employment and in the district in which the workman is employed at the time of the injury. Moreover, the right to recover is hedged about with technicalities which are unknown at the common law; proceedings must be taken in the county court, within a strictly limited time, and are maintainable only if certain elaborate provisions as to notice of injury have been complied with. Where the injury causes death the action is maintainable for the benefit of the like persons as are entitled under Lord Campbell's act in an action at common law.

Acts of 1897 to 1906.

The law continued in this condition up to 1897. In the majority of cases of injury to a servant, the doctrine of common employment still protected the master; and where, under the Employers' Liability Act, it failed to do so, the liability was of a limited character and often, owing to technicalities of procedure, difficult to enforce. Moreover, there is nothing in the act to prevent master and servant from entering into any special contract they please; and in many trades it became a common practice for contracts to be made wholly excluding the operation of the act. In 1893 an attempt was made to alter the law by a total abolition of the defence of common employment, so as to make a master as liable to a servant as to a stranger for the negligence of any of his servants acting in the course of their employment, and at the same time to prohibit any agreements to forego the rights so given to the servant. The bill did not become law, and no further change was made until, in 1897, parliament took the first step in what has been a complete revolution in the law of employers' liability. Up to that year, as has been seen, the foundation of a master's liability was negligence, either of the master himself, or, in certain cases, of his servants. But by the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, a new principle was introduced, whereby certain servants in certain employments were given a right to compensation for injuries, wholly irrespective of any consideration of negligence or contributory negligence. As regards such servants in such employments the master was in effect made an insurer against accidental injuries. The act was confessedly tentative and partial; it dealt only with selected industries, and even within these industries was not of universal application. But where it did apply, it gave a right to a limited compensation in every case of injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, whether that accident had been brought about by negligence or not, and whether the injured servant had or had not contributed to it by his own negligence.

The act applied only to employment on, or in, or about certain localities where, at the same time, the employer was what the act called an "undertaker," that is, the person whose business was there being carried on. If we wanted to know whether a workman was within the act, we had to ask, first, was he employed on, or in, or about a railway, or a factory, or a mine, or a quarry, or an engineering shop, or a building of the kind mentioned in the act; secondly, was he employed by one who was, in relation to that railway, &c., the undertaker as defined by the act; and thirdly, was he at the time of the accident at work on, or in, or about that railway, &c. Unless these three conditions were fulfilled the employment was not within the act.

The employments to which the act applied comprised railways, factories (which included docks, warehouses and steam laundries), mines, engineering works and most kinds of buildings. "Workman" included every person engaged in an employment to which the act applied, whether by manual labour or otherwise, and whether his agreement was one of service or apprenticeship or otherwise, expressed or implied, oral or in writing.

By the Workmen's Compensation Act 1900, the benefits of the act of 1897 were extended to agricultural labourers.

The Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (which came into force on the 1st of July 1907) extended the right of compensation for injuries practically to all persons in service, and also introduced many provisions not contained in the acts of 1897 and 1900 (repealed). It does not apply to persons in the naval or military service of the crown (s. 9), or persons employed otherwise than by way of manual labour whose remuneration exceeds two hundred and fifty pounds a year, or persons whose employment is of a casual nature, and who are employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business, or members of a police force, or out-workers, or members of the employer's family dwelling in his house. But it expressly applies to seamen.

Conditions of claim.

To entitle a workman engaged in an employment to which the act applies to compensation all the following conditions must be fulfilled: (1) There must be personal injury by accident. This will exclude injury wilfully inflicted, unless the injury results in death or serious and permanent disablement, but the act introduces a new provision by making the suspension or disablement from work or death caused by certain industrial diseases "accidents" within the meaning of the act. The industrial diseases specified in the 3rd schedule of the act were anthrax, ankylostomiasis, and lead, mercury, phosphorus and arsenic poisoning or their sequelae. But S 8 of the act authorized the secretary of state to make orders from time to time including other industrial diseases, and such orders have embraced glass workers' cataract, telegraphists' cramp, eczematous ulceration of the skin produced by dust or liquid, ulceration of the mucous membrane of the nose or mouth produced by dust, &c. To render the employer liable the workman must either obtain a certificate of disablement or be suspended or die by reason of the disease. If the disease has been contracted by a gradual process, all the employers who have employed the workman during the previous twelve months in the employment to which the disease was due are liable to contribute a share of the compensation to the employer primarily liable. (2) The accident must arise out of and in the course of the employment. In each case it will have to be determined whether the workman was at the time of the accident in the course of his employment, and whether the accident arose out of the employment. It will have to be considered when and where the particular employment began and ended. Other difficulties have arisen and will frequently arise when the workman at the time of the accident is doing something which is no part of the work he is employed to do. So far as the decisions have gone, they indicate that if what the workman is doing is no act of service, but merely for his own pleasure, or if he is improperly meddling with that which is no part of his work, the accident does not arise out of and in the course of his employment; but if, while on his master's work, he upon an emergency acts in his master's interest, though what he does is no part of the work he is employed to do, the accident does arise out of and in the course of his employment. (3) The injury must be such as disables the workman for a period of at least one week from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed. (4) Notice of the accident must be given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof, and before the workman has voluntarily left the employment in which he was injured; and the claim for compensation (by which is meant notice that he claims compensation under the act addressed by the workman to the employer) must be made within six months from the occurrence of the accident or, in case of death, from the time of death. Want of notice of the accident or defects in it are not to be a bar to proceedings, if occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause, and the employer is not prejudiced thereby. But want of notice of a claim for compensation is a bar to proceedings, unless the employer by his conduct has estopped himself from relying upon it. (5) An injured workman must, if so required by the employer, submit himself to medical examination.

When these conditions are fulfilled, an employer who is within the act has no answer unless he can prove that the injury arose from the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman. The precise effect of these terms is not clear; but mere negligence is not within them.

Where the injury causes death, the right to compensation belongs to the workman's "dependents"; that is, such of the members of the workman's family as were at the time of the death wholly or in part dependent upon the earnings of the workman for their maintenance. "Members of a family" means wife or husband, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father, step-mother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, step-son, step-daughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister. The act of 1906 makes also a very remarkable departure in including illegitimate relations in the direct line among "dependents," for where a workman, being the parent or grandparent of an illegitimate child, leaves such a child dependent upon his earnings, or, being an illegitimate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings, such child or parent is to be included in the "members of a family."

Amount.

Under the act compensation is for loss of wages only, and is, as has been said, based upon the actual previous earnings of the injured workman in the employment of the employers for whom he is working at the time of the injury. In case of death, if the workman leaves dependents who were wholly dependent on his earnings, the amount recovered is a sum equal to his earnings in the employment of the same employer during the three years next preceding the injury, or the sum of L150, whichever is the larger, but not exceeding L300; if the period of his employment by the same employer has been less than three years, then the amount of his earnings during the three years is to be deemed to be 156 times his average weekly earnings during the period of his actual employment under the said employer. If the workman leaves only dependents who were not wholly dependent, the amount recovered is such sum as may be reasonable and proportionate to the injury to them, but not exceeding the amount payable in the previous case. If the workman leaves no dependents, the amount recoverable is the reasonable expenses of his medical attendance and burial, not exceeding L10. In case of total or partial incapacity for work resulting from the injury, what is recovered is a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week not exceeding 50% of the workman's average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, if he has been so long employed, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the continuous employment of the same employer; such weekly payment is not to exceed L1--and in fixing it regard is to be had to the difference between the amount of his average weekly earnings before the accident and the average amount which he is able to earn after the accident. Any payments, not being wages, made by the employer in respect of the injury must also be taken into account. The weekly payment may from time to time be reviewed at the request of either party, upon evidence of a change in the circumstances since the award was made, and after six months may be redeemed by the employer by payment of a lump sum. A workman is within the act although at the time of the injury he has been in the employment for less than two weeks, and although there are no actual earnings from the same employer upon which a weekly average can be computed. But how are the average weekly earnings which he would have earned from the same employer to be estimated? The question must be determined as one of fact by reference to all the circumstances of the particular case. Suppose the workman to be engaged at six shillings a day and injured on the first day. If it can be inferred that he would have remained in such employment for a whole week, his average weekly earnings from the same employer may be taken at thirty shillings. If it can be inferred that he would have worked one day and no more, his average weekly earnings from the same employer may be taken at six shillings.

All questions as to liability or otherwise under the act, if not settled by agreement, are referred to arbitration in accordance with a scheme prescribed by the act. Contracting out is not permitted, save in one event: where a scheme of compensation, benefit or insurance for the workmen of an employer has been certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies to be not less favourable to the workmen and their dependents than the provisions of the act, and that where the scheme provides for contributions by the workmen, it confers benefits at least equal to those contributions, in addition to the benefits to which the workmen would have been entitled under the act, and that a majority (to be ascertained by ballot) of the workmen to whom the scheme is applicable are in favour of it, the employer may contract with any of his workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the act; such certificate may not be for more than five years, and may in certain circumstances be revoked. The act does not touch the workman's rights at common law or under the Employers' Liability Act, but the workman, if more than one remedy is open to him, can enforce only one. When the circumstances create a legal liability in some other person, e.g. where the injury is caused by the negligence of a sub-contractor or of a stranger, in such cases the employer, if required to pay compensation under the act, is entitled to be indemnified by such other person.

Under the Factory Acts, offences, when they result in death or bodily injury to health, may be punished by fine not exceeding L100, and the whole or any part of such fine may be applied for the benefit of the injured person or his family, or otherwise as the secretary of state determines. Similar provisions occur in the Mines Acts. Any sum so applied must be taken into account in estimating compensation under the Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Acts.

Germany.

_Law in Other Countries._--In _Germany_ (q.v.) there is a system of compulsory state insurance against accidents to workmen. The law dates from 1884, being amended from time to time (1885, 1886, 1887, 1900, 1903) to embrace different classes of employment. Occupations are grouped into (1) industry; (2) agriculture; (3) building; (4) marine, to all of which one general law, with variations necessary to the particular occupation in question, is applicable. There are also special provisions for prisoners and government officials. Practically every kind of working-man is thus included, with the exception of domestic servants and artisans or labourers working on their own account. All workmen and officials whose salary does not exceed L150 a year come within the law. No compensation is payable where an accident is caused through a person's own gross carelessness, and where an accident has been contributed to by a criminal act or intentional wrongdoing the compensation may be refused or only partially allowed. With these exceptions, compensation for injury is payable in case of injury so long as the injured is unfit to work; in case of total incapacity an allowance is made equal to two-thirds of the injured person's annual earnings, in case of partial incapacity, in proportion to the degree that his wage-earning capacity has been affected. In case of death the compensation is either burial money or an allowance to the family varying in amount from 20 to 60% of the annual earnings according to circumstances. The provision of compensation for accidents falls entirely upon employers, and in order to lighten the burden thus falling upon them, and at the same time to guard against the possible insolvency of an individual employer, associations or self-administering bodies of employers have been formed--usually all the employers of each particular branch of industry in a district. These associations fix the amount of compensation after each accident, and at the end of the year assess the amount upon the individual employers. There is an appeal from the association to an arbitration court, and in particularly complicated cases there may be a further appeal to the imperial insurance department. No allowance is paid until after the lapse of thirteen weeks from the accident, and in the meantime the injured person is supported from a sick fund to which the employers contribute one-third, the employee contributing two-thirds. In Germany quite twelve millions of workpeople are insured; in 1905 a sum of nearly eight millions sterling was paid for accidents, and a million and a half to the families of those killed in accidents.

Austria.

In _Austria_ the compulsory insurance of workmen was provided for by a law of 1887, with subsequent amendments. Briefly, nearly every class of industrial worker is included under the Austrian law, which is administered by special territorial insurance institutions, each of them embracing particular classes of industries or workers. The institutions are managed by committees, one-third of the members of each committee being chosen by the minister of the interior, one-third by the employers and one-third by the workers. Compensation is payable, in case of accidents, on a scale proportionate to the injured person's wages during the preceding year. In case of death, a certain sum is paid for funeral expenses, an annuity to the widow, if one is left, equal to 20% of the deceased's annual wages--if the widow remarries, she receives a lump sum equal to three annual payments in liquidation of the annuity--an annuity to each legitimate child equal to 15%, or, if the child has no mother, equal to 20% of the father's wages; an annuity to the father or mother, if dependent on the deceased for support, equal to 20% of the annual wages. As in the English act of 1906 illegitimate children are recognized by being granted an annuity in the case of the death of a father equal to 10% of his wages. In no case can the total amount of the annuities exceed 50% of the deceased's annual wages. Where the accident has resulted in total incapacity, the workman receives an annuity equal to 60% of his wages. No allowance is paid until after the fourth week, during which time the injured is supported by the sick-insurance institutions. The provision for the system is raised by contributions to the extent of nine-tenths by the employers and one-tenth by the workers, deducted from their wages. Instead of the German method by which an annual payment equal to the amount disbursed is required from each employer, he is required to provide the full amount necessary for the complete payment of the pension, this amount being placed to the credit of a special insurance fund.

France.

In _France_ a system of compulsory state insurance against accidents was created by a law of 1898. The principal feature in the French law is the attempt to meet the possible insolvency of the employer by the establishment of a special guarantee fund, created by a small addition to the "business tax" (_contribution des patentes_), and, in the case of the mining industry, by a small tax on mines.

Norway.

_Norway_, by a law of 1894, amended in 1897 and 1899, adopted a system of compulsory insurance modelled to a great extent on the German system. Instead, however, of a trade association as in Germany, or a district insurance association as in Austria, there is a government insurance office, in which employers have to insure their workmen.

Denmark.

In _Denmark_ a law was passed in 1897 rendering employers personally liable for the amount of compensation for accidents, but employers may relieve themselves of this liability by insuring workmen in an assurance association approved of by the minister of the interior. This course, however, is discretionary with employers.

Italy.

In _Italy_, although many attempts were made between 1889 and 1898 to introduce a system of compulsory insurance, it was not until the latter year that the principle was adopted. There is a National Bank for the Insurance of Working men against Accident (_Cassa Nazionale di Assicurazione per gli infortuni degli operaji sul lavoro_), created under a law of 1883. It has special privileges, such as exemption from taxation and the employment of the branch offices of the state post-office savings bank as local offices. Under the law of 1898 there is a primary obligation on the employer to insure his workmen with the National Bank, but he may, if he prefers, insure with other societies approved by government. Employers employing about five hundred workmen may, instead of insuring, establish a fund for the payment of not less than the statutory compensation, subject to giving adequate security for the sufficiency of the fund. Exemption from compulsory insurance is granted to employers who have established a mutual insurance association, which must comply with certain prescribed conditions. Railway companies, also, are exempt, if they have relief funds which conform with the provisions of the act.

Spain.

In _Spain_ an act of the 30th of January 1900, adopted the principle of the personal responsibility of the employer for accidents to workmen other than those due to vis major. The act also lays down regulations for preventing accidents in dangerous trades, and releases the employer from personal liability on effecting adequate insurance of his workmen with an approved insurance company.

Holland.

_Holland_ has adopted the principle of compulsory insurance by a law of the 2nd of January 1901. An employer has to pay the necessary premium to the State Insurance Office, or by depositing adequate security with the State Office he may undertake the payment of the prescribed compensation himself. Or he may transfer his liability to an insurance company, provided the company deposit adequate security with the State Office. The State Insurance Office is under the management of directors appointed by the crown, and decides on all questions as to compensation; there is also a "Supervisory Board" of the State Office with joint representation of employers and workmen. There is an appeal from the State Office to Councils of Appeal, and from them to a National Board of Appeal.

Greece.

_Greece_ has a law of the 21st of February 1901, providing for compensation for accidents causing incapacity of more than four days' duration to workmen in mines, quarries and smelting works. The employer is exclusively liable for such compensation and for medical expenses during the first three months; after that time he is liable for one-half, the other half being borne by a miners' provident fund, supported by certain taxes on the properties affected, fines, &c.

Sweden.

By a law of the 5th of July 1901, _Sweden_ adopted the principle of the personal liability of the employer for industrial accidents. The employer can, however, insure himself against liability in the Royal Insurance Institute. Compensation becomes payable after the expiration of sixty days from the date of the accident.

Russia.

_Russia_ has a law which came into force on the 1st of January 1904. Under this law employers in certain specified industries are bound to indemnify workers for incapacity of more than three days' duration due to injury arising out of their work. Employers are exempt from liability by insuring their workmen in insurance companies whose terms are not less favourable than those laid down by the law.

Belgium.

_Belgium_ passed a law dealing with industrial accidents on the 24th of December 1903. It adopts the principle of the personal liability of the employer in certain specified trades or industries. There is a power of extension to such other undertakings as may be declared dangerous by the Commission on Labour Accidents. Employers may exempt themselves from their liability by contracting for the payment of compensation by an insurance company approved by the government or by the National Savings and Pension Fund. Where an employer does not so contract, he must (with certain exemptions) contribute to a special insurance fund. The law of 1903 also established a permanent Commission on Labour Accidents.

Switzerland.

_Switzerland_ in 1899 adopted a law providing for accident insurance, but it was defeated on referendum in May 1900.

United States.

In the _United States_ the law mainly depends on the doctrine of common employment, and the extent to which this doctrine is applied varies considerably in the different states, more particularly as to who are and who are not to be regarded as fellow-servants. The tendency, however, has been to increase the liability of the employer for the negligence of a fellow-servant, and in the case of employment on railways many states have passed laws either modifying or abrogating the doctrine. Colorado, by a law of 1901, has entirely abrogated it; and Alabama, Massachusetts and New York have laws generally similar to the English act of 1880. But the greatest departure, due to the initiative of President Roosevelt, has been the passing by the Federal Congress of the laws of April 22 and May 30, 1908, one giving damages to injured employees of interstate carriers by railroad, and common carriers by railroad in Territories, the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone and other territory governed by Congress, and the other giving regular wages for not more than one year to injured employees of the U.S. government in arsenals, navy yards, construction work on rivers, harbours and fortifications, hazardous work in connexion with the Panama Canal or Reclamation Service, and in government manufacturing establishments. These national laws, which were intended to serve as an example to the states, specifically provided for employers' liability and for the non-recognition of the doctrine of common employment.

British Colonies.

Most of the British colonial states have adopted the principle of the English Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, and the various colonial acts are closely modelled on the English act, with more or less important variations in detail. The New Zealand Act was passed in 1900, and amended in 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1905. The act of 1905 (No. 50) fixes the minimum compensation for total or partial disablement at L1 a week when the worker's previous remuneration was not less than 30s. a week. South Australia passed a Workmen's Compensation Act in 1900 and Western Australia one in 1902. New South Wales passed one in 1905, and British Columbia in 1902.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] "Employ" comes through Fr. from Lat. _implicare_, to enfold, Late Lat. to direct upon something.

EMPOLI, a town of Tuscany, Italy, in the province of Florence, from which it is 20 m. W. by S. by rail. Pop. (1901) 7005 (town); 20,301 (commune). It is situated 89 ft. above sea-level, to the S. of the Arno. The principal church, the Collegiata, or Pieve di S. Andrea, founded in 1093, still preserves the lower part of the original arcaded facade in black, white and coloured marble. The works of art which it once contained are most of them preserved in a gallery close by. Some of the other churches contain interesting works of art. The principal square is surrounded by old houses with arcades. The painter Jacopo Chimenti (Jacopo da Empoli), 1554-1640, was born here. Empoli is on the main railway line from Florence to Pisa, and is the point of divergence of a line to Siena.

EMPORIA, a city and the county-seat of Lyon county, Kansas, U.S.A., on the Neosho river, about 60 m. S.W. of Topeka. Pop. (1890) 7551; (1900) 8223, of whom 686 were foreign-born and 663 were negroes; (1910 U.S. census) 9058. It is served by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas railways. The city has a Carnegie library, and is the seat of the state normal school and of the College of Emporia (Presbyterian; 1883). Emporia's industrial interests are mainly centred in commerce with the surrounding farming region; but there are small flour mills, machine shops, foundries and other manufacturing establishments,--in 1905 the value of the factory product was $571,601. The municipality owns and operates the water-works and the electric-lighting plant. Emporia was settled in 1856 and was chartered as a city in 1870. The Emporia _Gazette_, established in 1890, was purchased in 1894 by William Allen White (b. 1868), a native of Emporia, who took over the editorship and made a great stir in 1896 by his editorial entitled "What's the matter with Kansas?"; he also wrote several volumes of excellent short stories, particularly _The Court of Boyville_ (1889), _Stratagems and Spoils_ (1901) and _In Our Town_ (1906).

EMPORIUM (a Latin adaptation of the Gr. [Greek: emporion], from [Greek: en], in, and stem of [Greek: poreuesthai], to travel for purpose of trade) a trade-centre such as a commercial city, to which buyers and dealers resort for transaction of business from all parts of the world. The word is often applied to a large shop.

EMPSON, SIR RICHARD (d. 1510), minister of Henry VII., king of England, was a son of Peter Empson, an influential inhabitant of Towcester. Educated as a lawyer he soon attained considerable success in his profession, and in 1491 was one of the members of parliament for Northamptonshire and speaker of the House of Commons. Early in the reign of Henry VII. he became associated with Edmund Dudley (q.v.) in carrying out the king's rigorous and arbitrary system of taxation, and in consequence he became very unpopular. Retaining the royal favour, however, he was made a knight in 1504, and was soon high steward of the university of Cambridge, and chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; but his official career ended with Henry's death in April 1509. Thrown into prison by order of the new king, Henry VIII., he was charged, like Dudley, with the crime of constructive treason, and was convicted at Northampton in October 1509. His attainder by the parliament followed, and he was beheaded on the 17th or 18th of August 1510. Empson left, so far as is known, a family of two sons and four daughters, and about 1513 his estates were restored to his elder son, Thomas.

See Francis Bacon, _History of Henry VII_., edited by J.R. Lumby (Cambridge, 1881); and J.S. Brewer, _The Reign of Henry VIII_., edited by J. Gairdner (London, 1884).

EMPYEMA (from Gr. [Greek: en], within, and [Greek: pyon], pus), a term in medicine applied to an accumulation of purulent fluid within the cavity of the pleura (see LUNG: _Surgery_).

EMPYREAN (from the Med. Lat. _empyreus_, an adaptation of the Gr. [Greek: erpnros], in or on the fire, [Greek: pyr]), the place in the highest heaven, which in ancient cosmologies was supposed to be occupied by the element of fire. It was thus used as a name for the firmament, and in Christian literature for the dwelling-place of God and the blessed, and as the source of light. The word is used both as a substantive and as an adjective. Having the same Greek origin are the scientific words "empyreuma" and "empyreumatic," applied to the characteristic smell of burning or charring vegetable or animal matter.

EMS, a river of Germany, rising on the south slope of the Teutoburger Wald, at an altitude of 358 ft., and flowing generally north-west and north through Westphalia and Hanover to the east side of the Dollart, immediately south of Emden. After passing through the Dollart the navigable stream bifurcates, the eastern Ems going to the east, and the western Ems to the west, of the island of Borkum to the North Sea. Length, 200 m.

Between 1892 and 1899 the river was canalized along its right bank for a distance of 43 m. At the same time, and as part of the same general plan, a canal, the DORTMUND-EMS CANAL, was dug to connect the river (from Munster) with Herne in the Westphalian coal-field. At Henrichenburg a branch from Herne (5 m. long) connects with another branch from Dortmund (10-1/2 m. long). Another branch, from Olfen (north of Dortmund), connects with Duisburg, and so with the Rhine. There is, however, a difference in elevation of 46 ft. between the two branches first named, and vessels are transferred from the one to the other by means of a huge lift. The canal, which was constructed to carry small steamers and boats up to 220 ft. in length and 750 tons burden, measures 169 m. in length, of which 108-1/2 m. were actually dug, and cost altogether L3,728,750. The surface width throughout is 98-1/2 ft., the bottom width 59 ft., and the depth 8-1/6 ft.

See Victor Kurs, "Die kunstlichen Wasserstrassen des deutschen Reichs," in _Geog. Zeitschrift_ (1898), pp. 601-617 and 665-694; and _Deutsche Rundschau f. Geog. und Stat_. (1898), pp. 130-131.

EMS, a town and watering-place of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, romantically situated on both banks of the Lahn, in a valley surrounded by wooded mountains and vine-clad hills, 11 m. E. from Coblenz on the railway to Cassel and Berlin. Pop. 6500. It has two Evangelical, a Roman Catholic, an English and a Russian church. There is some mining industry (silver and lead). Ems is one of the most delightful and fashionable watering-places of Europe. Its waters--hot alkaline springs about twenty in number--are used both for drinking and bathing, and are efficacious in chronic nervous disorders, feminine complaints and affections of the liver and respiratory organs. On the right bank of the river lies the Kursaal with pretty gardens. A stone let into the promenade close by marks the spot where, on the 13th of July 1870, King William of Prussia had the famous interview with the French ambassador Count Benedetti (q.v.) which resulted in the war of 1870-1871. A funicular railway runs up to the Malberg (1000 ft.), where is a sanatorium and whence extensive views are obtained over the Rhine valley. Ems is largely frequented in the summer months by visitors from all parts of the world--the numbers amounting to about 11,000 annually--and many handsome villas have been erected for their accommodation. In August 1786 Ems was the scene of the conference of the delegates of the four German archbishops, known as the congress of Ems, which issued (August 25) in the famous joint pronouncement, known as the Punctation of Ems, against the interference of the papacy in the affairs of the Catholic Church in Germany (see FEBRONIANISM).

See Vogler, Ems, _seine Heilquellen, Kureinrichtungen_, &c. (Ems, 1888); and Hess, _Zur Geschichte der Stadt Ems_ (Ems, 1895).

EMSER, JEROME, or HIERONYMUS (1477-1527), antagonist of Luther, was born of a good family at Ulm on the 20th of March 1477. He studied Greek at Tubingen and jurisprudence at Basel, and after acting for three years as chaplain and secretary to Raymond Peraudi, cardinal of Gurk, he began lecturing on classics in 1504 at Erfurt, where Luther may have been among his audience. In the same year he became secretary to Duke George of Albertine Saxony, who, unlike his cousin Frederick the Wise, the elector of Ernestine Saxony, remained the stanchest defender of Roman Catholicism among the princes of northern Germany. Duke George at this time was bent on securing the canonization of Bishop Benno of Meissen, and at his instance Emser travelled through Saxony and Bohemia in search of materials for a life of Benno, which he subsequently published in German and Latin. In pursuit of the same object he made an unsuccessful visit to Rome in 1510. Meanwhile he had also been lecturing on classics at Leipzig, but gradually turned his attention to theology and canon law. A prebend at Dresden (1509) and another at Meissen, which he obtained through Duke George's influence, gave him means and leisure to pursue his studies.

At first Emser was on the side of the reformers, but like his patron he desired a practical reformation of the clergy without any doctrinal breach with the past or the church; and his liberal sympathies were mainly humanistic, like those of Erasmus and others who parted company with Luther after 1519. As late as that year Luther referred to him as "Emser noster," but the disputation at Leipzig in that year completed the breach between them. Emser warned his Bohemian friends against Luther, and Luther retorted with an attack on Emser which outdid in scurrility all his polemical writings. Emser, who was further embittered by an attack of the Leipzig students, imitated Luther's violence, and asserted that Luther's whole crusade originated in nothing more than enmity to the Dominicans, Luther's reply was to burn Emser's books along with Leo X.'s bull of excommunication.

Emser next, in 1521, published an attack on Luther's "Appeal to the German Nobility," and eight works followed from his pen in the controversy, in which he defended the Roman doctrine of the Mass and the primacy of the pope. At Duke George's instance he prepared, in 1523, a German translation of Henry VIII.'s "Assertio Septem Sacramentorum contra Lutherum," and criticized Luther's "New Testament." He also entered into a controversy with Zwingli. He took an active part in organizing a reformed Roman Catholic Church in Germany, and in 1527 published a German version of the New Testament as a counterblast to Luther's. He died on the 8th of November in that year and was buried at Dresden.

Emser was a vigorous controversialist, and next to Eck the most eminent of the German divines who stood by the old church. But he was hardly a great scholar; the errors he detected in Luther's New Testament were for the most part legitimate variations from the Vulgate, and his own version is merely Luther's adapted to Vulgate requirements.

Bibliography.--Waldau, _Nachricht von Hieronymus Emsers Leben und Schriften_ (Anspach, 1783); Kawerau, _Hieronymus Emser_ (Halle, 1898); _Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen_ (Leipzig, 1905); _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, vi. 96-98 (1877). All histories of the Reformation in Germany contain notices of Emser; see especially Friedensburg, _Beitrage zum Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter_. (A. F. P.)

ENAMEL (formerly "amel," derived through the Fr. _amail, esmal, esmail_, from a Latin word _smaltum_, first found in a 9th-century life of Leo IV.), a term, strictly speaking, given to the hard vitreous compound, which is "fused" upon the surface of metallic objects either for the purpose of decoration or utility. This compound is a form of glass made of silica, minium and potash, which is stained by the chemical combination of various metallic oxides whilst in a melted condition in the crucible. This strict application of the term was widened to signify the metal object coated with enamel, so that to-day the term "an enamel" generally implies a work of art in enamel upon metal. The composition of the substance enamel which is used upon metal does not vary to any great extent from the enamels employed upon pottery and faience. But they differ in this respect, that the pottery enamel is usually applied to the "biscuit" surface of the ware in a raw state; that is, the compound has not been previously "run down" or vitrified in the crucible by heat, as is the case with enamelling upon metal, although, in most of the enamelled iron advertisement tablets, the enamel is in the raw state and is treated in a similar manner to that employed upon pottery.

Examination of the enamels upon brick of the Assyrians shows that they were applied unvitrified. It was upon pottery and brick that the ancient Egyptians and Assyrians achieved their greatest work in enamelling. For as yet no work of such magnificence as the great enamelled walls of the palace of Rameses III. at Tell el-Yehudia in the Delta of the Nile, or the palace of Nimrod in Babylon, has been discovered upon metal of any kind. But there were gold ornaments and jewelry enamelled of noble design in opaque turquoise, cobalt, emerald green and purple, some of which can be seen at the British Museum and the Louvre. An example is shown in Plate I. fig. 3.

In the subsequent Greek and Roman civilizations enamel was also applied to articles of personal adornment. Many pieces of jewelry, exquisite in workmanship, have been found. But a greater application was made of it by the Greek sculptors in the 4th and 5th centuries B.C. For we find, in many instances, that not only were the eyes made of enamel--which (artistically speaking) is a somewhat doubtful manner of employing it,--as in the fine bronze head found at Anticythera (Cerigotto) in 1902, but in the colossal figure of Zeus for the temple at Olympia made by Pheidias the gold drapery was gorgeously enamelled with figures and flowers. This wonderful work by the greatest sculptor the world has ever seen was destroyed, as so many priceless works of art in enamel have been: doubtless on account of the precious metal upon which they were made. It was in all probability the crowning triumph of a long series of essays in this material. The art of ancient Rome lacked the inspiration of Greece, being mainly confined to copying Greek forms and style, and in the case of enamelling it did not depart from this attitude. But the Roman and Etruscan glass has many beautiful qualities of form and colour that do not seem entirely borrowed, and the enamel work upon them so far as we can discern is of graceful design and rich colour. No doubt, were it not, as has been remarked, for the fact that enamelling was generally done upon gold and silver, there would still be many works to testify to the art of that period. Such as there are, however, show a rare appreciation of enamel as a beautiful material. With the decline of this civilization the art of enamelling probably died out. For it has ever been one of those exquisite arts which exist only under the sunshine of an opulent luxurious time or sheltered from the rude winds of a poorer age by the affluence of patrons. The next time we hear of it is in an oft-quoted passage (c. A.D. 240) from the writings of the great sophist Philostratus, who says (_Icones_, i. 28):--"It is said that the barbarians in the ocean pour these colours into bronze moulds, that the colours become as hard as stone, preserving the designs,"--a more or less inaccurate description of the process of _champleve_. This has been understood (from an interpretation given to a passage in the commentary on it by Olearius) to refer to the Celts of the British Islands. It also goes to prove that enamelling was not practised at this day in Greece. We have no British enamels to show so early as this, but belonging to a later period, from the 6th to the 9th century, a number of the finest gold and bronze ornaments, horse trappings, shields, fibulae and ciboria have been discovered of Celtic and Saxon make. The Saxon work has nothing to show so exquisitely wrought as that found in Ireland, where one or two pieces are to be seen now in the Dublin Museum, notably the Ardagh chalice and some gold brooches. In the chalice the enamel is of a minute inlaid character, and appears to have been made first in the form of a multi-colour bead, which was fused to the surface of its setting, and then polished down. Many of the pieces seem to have been made after this fashion, which does not speak very highly of the technical knowledge of enamelling, but it is none the less true enamelling of an elementary character. The shield at the British Museum has an inlay of red enamel which is remarkable in its quality. For centuries such a fine opaque red has not been discovered. An example of Irish work is shown in Plate II. fig. 10.

From Ireland the art was transferred to Byzantium, which is to be seen by the close resemblance of method, style, design and colour. The style and design changed in course of time, but the craft remained. It was at Byzantium that it flourished for several centuries.

The finest work we know of belonging to this period is the Pala d'Oro at St Mark's, Venice, believed to have been brought from Constantinople to Venice about 1105. This magnificent altar-piece is in _cloisonne_ enamel. A typical example is the ciborium and chalice belonging to the South Kensington loan collection. The design entirely covers the whole of the surface in one rich mass composed of circular or vesica-shaped medallions filled with sacred subjects and foliated scrolls. These are engraved and enamelled, and the metal bands of the scrolls and figures are engraved and gilt. The characteristic quality of the colour scheme is that it is composed almost wholly of primaries. Red, blue and yellow predominate, with a little white and black. Occasionally the secondaries, green and purple, are used, but through the whole period of Byzantine enamelling there is a total absence of what to-day is termed "subtle colouring." The arrangement of the enamels is also distinct, in that the divisions of the colours are not always made by the cloison, but are frequently laid in side by side without the adjoining colours mingling or running together whilst being melted. For instance, in a leaf pattern or in the drapery, the dress may be cobalt, heightened with turquoise or green. Thus it is interesting to observe that the artist employed the metal dividing lines frequently for the sake of aesthetic result, and was not much hampered by technical difficulties. This was the rule when opaque enamels were used. It is also worthy of remark that these opaque enamels differ from those in common use to-day, in that they are not nearly so opaque. This quality, together with a dull, instead of a highly polished surface, gives a much softer appearance to the enamels. Again, the whole tone of the enamels is darker and richer. Many examples of Byzantine work (see fig. 1.) are to be seen in the public and private art collections throughout Europe. They are principally upon ecclesiastical objects, missal covers, croziers, chalices, ciboria, pyx, candlesticks, crosses and tabernacles. In most instances the enamels are made in separate little plates rudely fastened with nails, screws or rivets to a metal or wooden foundation. Theophilus, a monk of the 13th century, describes the process of enamelling as it was understood by the Byzantines of his time, which probably differed but little from earlier methods. The design and drawing of the figures in Byzantine enamels is similar to the mosaic and carving. The figures are treated entirely as decorations, with scarcely ever the least semblance of expression, although here and there an intention of piety or sorrow is to be descried through the awkward postures in which they are placed. In spite of this, the sense of decorative design, the simplicity of conception, the strength of the general character, and the richness of the colour, places this period as one of the finest which the art of enamelling has seen, and it leads us to lay stress upon the principle that the simplest methods in design and manipulation attain a higher end than those which are elaborate and intricate. It might be asserted with truth that this style never arrived at the degree of delicacy and refinement of later styles. But the refinement was often at the expense of higher qualities.

The next great application of these kinds of enamelling was at Cologne, for there we find not only the renowned work of Nicolas of Verdun, the altar front at Klosterneuberg, which consists of fifty plates in _champleve_ enamel, but in that Rhenish province there are many shrines of magnificent conception. From here the secrets of the craft were taken to Limoges, where the greatest activity was displayed, as numerous examples are found throughout England, France and Spain, which no doubt were made there (see Plate I. fig. 6.) But no new method or distinct advance is to be noticed, during these successive revivals at Byzantium, Cologne or Limoges, and it is to early 14th-century Italy that we owe one of the most beautiful developments, that of the process subsequently called _basse-taille_, which signifies a low-cut relief upon which transparent enamel is fused.

In this process enamelling passed from a decorative to a fine art. For it demanded the highest knowledge of an artist with the consummate skill of both sculptor and enameller. Witness the superb gold cup, called the King's Cup, now in the British Museum, and the silver cup at King's Lynn. The first is in an excellent state of preservation, as it is upon gold, but the latter, like most of the ancient enamelling upon silver, has lost most of its enamel. This was due--as the present writer believes after much experiment--to the impurity of the silver employed. The King's Cup is one of the finest works in enamelling extant. It consists of a gold cup and cover, hammered out of pure gold; and around the bowl, base and cover there are bands of figures, illustrating the scenes from the life of St Agnes. The hands and faces are of pale jasper, which over the carved gold gives a beautiful flesh tone. The draperies are in most resplendent ruby, sapphire, emerald, ivory, black and orange. The stem was subsequently altered by an additional piece inserted and enamelled with Tudor roses. It is a work of the 13th century, and belonged to Jean, duc de Berry, who gave it to his nephew, Charles VI. of France, in 1391. It afterwards came into the possession of the kings of England, from Henry VI. to James I., who gave it to Don Juan Velasco, constable of Castile. It was purchased by subscription with the aid of the treasury for the British Museum.

Other well-known pieces are the silver horn in the possession of the marquess of Aylesbury, and the crozier of William of Wykeham at New College, Oxford. The discovery about the same time of the process called _plique-a-jour_ forms another most interesting and beautiful development. Owing to the difficulty of its manufacture and its extreme fragility there are very few examples left. One of the finest specimens is now at the Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington. It is in the form of two bands of emerald green enamel which decorate a silver beaker. They are in the form of little stained glass windows, the cloisons forming (as it were) the leads. These fine cloisons and shapes are most correct in form, and the whole piece shows a perfection of craftsmanship rarely equalled.

The end of the 15th century saw a development in enamelling which was not only remarkable, but revolutionary in its method. For until then the whole theory of enamelling had been that it relied upon the enclosing edges of the metal or the cloison to hold it to the metal ground and in part to preserve it in the shape of the pattern, much in the same way as a setting holds a stone or a jewel. All the enamel before this date had been sunk into cells or cloisons. Two discoveries were made; first, that enamels could be made which require no enclosing ribbon of metal, but that merely the enamel should be fused on both sides of the metal object; secondly, that after an enamel had been fused to a surface of metal, another could be superimposed and fused to the first layer without any danger of separation from each or from the metal ground. It is true that such processes had been employed upon glass on which enamel had been applied, as well as upon pottery; and it is probably due to the influence of a knowledge of both enamelling upon metal and upon glass or pottery that the discovery was made.

In most of these enamel paintings the subject was laid on with a white enamel upon a dark ground. The white was modulated; so that possessing a slight degree of translucency, it was grey in the thin parts and white in the thick. Thus was obtained a certain amount of light and shade. This gave the process called _grisaille_. But strange to say, it was not until a later period that this was practised alone, and then the modelling of the figures and draperies became very elaborate. At first it was only done in a slight degree, just sufficiently to give expression and to add to the richness of the form. For the enamellers were thinking of a plate upon which to put their wonderful colours, and not only of form. The painting in white was therefore invariably coloured with enamels. Probably the earliest painter in enamel was Nardon Penicaud, many of whose works (one of them, dated 1503, is in the Cluny Museum) have been preserved with great care. He had many followers, the most distinguished of whom was Leonard Limosin (i.e. of Limoges). He excelled in portraiture. Examples of his work (between 1532 and 1574) are to be found in most of the larger public and private collections. Leonard Limosin and his Limoges contemporaries were very largely addicted to the employment of foil, which became too largely used, thus spoiling their otherwise fine serious work.

The family of Jean Penicaud, Jean Court de Vigier, Pierre Raymond and Pierre Courteys were all great names of artists who excelled in the _grisaille_ process. _Grisaille_ is similar to _pate-sur-pate_ in pottery, and depends for its attractive quality entirely upon form and composition. No comparison should be made with enamels in colour, for they occupy a different category--similar to cameo.

The casket shown in Plate II. fig. 9 is by Jean Penicaud. It is a fine example of the enamelling in this style, very beautiful in colour. The hands and faces are in opaque white enamel; the draperies, garlands and flowers are in transparent green, turquoise blue, purple and cobalt over foil. The background is in transparent violet over white enamel ground, which is _seme_ with gold stars. The draperies are also heightened with gold.

One of the most marvellous pieces of brilliant craft is the missal cover (Plate I. fig. 5) at the South Kensington Museum, said to have belonged to Henrietta Maria, queen of Charles I. The subjects are the "Creation of Adam and Eve" and the "Fountain of Youth." It is about 4 in. by 7 when opened out. The enamel is encrusted upon the figures, ornament and flowers which are beaten up in pure gold into high relief. The extraordinary minuteness and skill of handling, and the extreme brilliancy of the enamels, which are as brilliant to-day as on the day they were made, together form one of the unique specimens of art craftsmanship of the world. To the subdued taste of to-day, however, the effect is tawdry. The conception and design are also alike unworthy of the execution.

Since the Assyrian and Egyptian civilizations, there has been a succession of luxurious developments followed by lapses into the decline and death of the art of enamelling upon metals. In each revival there has been something added to that which was known and practised before. The last revival took place five hundred years ago, accompanying the rebirth of learning and the arts; but after flourishing for over a century, the art gradually fell into disuse, and remained so until the recent revival and further development. The development consists, first, in the more complete knowledge of the technical processes, following upon the great advances which science has made; and secondly, in a finer and more subtly artistic treatment of them. The advance in technical knowledge comprises greater facility and perfection in the production of the substance enamel, and its subsequent application to metal surfaces; more intimate knowledge of metals and their alloys to which it is applied, and greater ease in obtaining them from the metalliferous ores and reducing them to suitable dimensions and surfaces. For instance, it is now a simple matter to obtain perfectly pure copper by means of electricity. Again, formerly a flat sheet of metal was obtained by hammering, which involved an infinite amount of hard labour, whereas it is accomplished to-day with ease by means of flatting and rolling mills: i.e. after the metal has been obtained from the ore in the form of an ingot, it is stretched equally to any degree of thinness by steel rollers. Further, the furnaces have been greatly improved by the introduction of gas and electricity as the heating power, instead of the wood or charcoal employed.

In the manufacture of the substance enamel a much greater advance has been made, for whereas the colours, and consequently the schemes of colour, were extremely limited, we now possess an infinite gradation in the colours, as well as the transparency and opacity, the hardness and softness of enamels. There are only two colours which cannot yet be obtained; these are opaque vermilion and lemon yellow in a vitrified state. Many of the colours we now employ were not known by enamellers such as Leonard Limosin. Our enamels are also perfect in purity, brilliancy and durability, qualities which are largely due to the perfect knowledge of the proportion of parts composing an enamel and their complete combination. It is this complete combination, together with the absence of any destructible matter, which gives the enamel its lasting quality.

The base of enamel is a clear, colourless, transparent vitreous compound called flux, which is composed of silica, minium and potash. This flux or base--termed _fondant_ in France--is coloured by the addition of oxides of metals while in a state of fusion, which stain the flux throughout its mass. Enamels are either hard or soft, according to the proportion of the silica to the other parts in its composition. They are termed hard when the temperature required to fuse them is very high. The harder the enamel the less liable is it to be affected by atmospheric agencies, which in soft enamels produce a decomposition of the surface first and ultimately of the whole enamel. It is therefore advisable to use hard enamels in all cases. This involves the employment of pure--or almost pure--metals for the plates, which are in most respects the best to receive and retain the enamel. For if there is an excess of alloy, either the metal will possibly melt before the enamel is fused or afterwards they will part company. To the inferior quality of old silver may be attributed the fact that in all cases the enamel has flown off it; if it has not yet wholly disappeared it will scale off in time. It is therefore essential that metals should be pure and the enamels hard. It is also noteworthy that enamels composed of a great amount of soda or potash, as compared with those wherein red lead is in greater proportion, are more liable to crack and have less cohesion to the metals. It is better not to use silver as a base, although it is capable of reflecting a higher and more brilliant white light than any other metal. Fine gold and pure copper as thin as possible are the best metals upon which to enamel. If silver is to be used, it should be fine silver, treated in the methods called _champleve_ and _cloisonne_.

The brilliancy of the substance enamel depends upon the perfect combination and proportion of its component parts. The intimacy of the combination depends upon an equal temperature being maintained throughout its fusion in the crucible. For this purpose it is better to obtain a flux which has been already fused and most carefully prepared, and afterwards to add the colouring oxides, which stain it dark or light according to the amount of oxide introduced. Many of the enamels are changed in colour by the difference of the proportion of the parts composing the flux, rather than by the change of the oxides. For instance, turquoise blue is obtained from the black oxide of copper by using a comparatively large proportion of carbonate of soda, and a yellow green from the same oxide by increasing the proportionate amount of the red lead. All transparent enamels are made opaque by the addition of calx, which is a mixture of tin and lead calcined. White enamel is made by the addition of stannic and arsenious acids to the flux. The amount of acid regulates the density or opacity of the enamel.

To elucidate the development which has occurred, it will be necessary to describe some of the processes. After the enamel has been procured in the lump, the next stage in the process, common to all methods of enamelling, is to pulverize it. To do this properly the enamel must first be placed in an agate mortar and covered with water; next, with a wooden mallet a number of sharp blows must be given to a pestle held vertically over the enamel, to break it; then holding the mortar firmly in the left hand, the pestle must be rotated with the right, with as much pressure as possible on the enamel, grinding it until the particles are reduced to a fine grain. The powder is then subjected to a series of washings in distilled water, until all the floury particles are removed. After this the metal is cleaned by immersion in acid and water. For copper, nitric acid is used; for silver, sulphuric, and for gold hydrochloric acid. All trace of acid is then removed, first by scratching with a brush and water, and finally by drying in warm oak sawdust. After this the pulverized enamel is carefully and evenly spread over those parts of the metal designed to receive it, in sufficient thickness just to cover them and no more. The piece is then dried in front of the furnace, and when dry is placed gently on a fire-clay or iron _planche_, and introduced carefully into the muffle of the furnace, which is heated to a bright pale red. It is now attentively watched until the enamel shines all over, when it is withdrawn from the furnace. The firing of enamel, unlike that of glass or pottery, takes only a few minutes, and in nearly all processes no annealing is required.

The following are the different modes of enamelling: _champleve, cloisonne, basse-taille, plique-a-jour, painted enamel, encrusted,_ and _miniature-painted_. These processes were known at successive periods of ancient art in the order in which they are named. To-day they are known in their entirety. Each has been largely developed and improved. No new method has been discovered, although variations have been introduced into all. The most important are those connected with painted enamels, encrusted enamels and _plique-a-jour_.

_Champleve enamelling_ is done by cutting away troughs or cells in the plate, leaving a metal line raised between them, which forms the outline of the design. In these cells the pulverized enamel is laid and then fused; afterwards it is filed with a corundum file, then smoothed with a pumice stone and polished by means of crocus powder and rouge. An example is shown in Plate II. fig. 8.

In _cloisonne enamel_, upon a metal plate or shape, thin metal strips are bent to the outline of the pattern, then fixed by silver solder or by the enamel itself. These strips form a raised outline, giving cells as in the case of _champleve_. The rest of the process is identical with that of _champleve_ enamelling. An example is shown in Plate I. fig. 4.

The _basse-taille_ process is also a combination of metal work in the form of engraving, carving and enamelling. The metal, either silver or gold, is engraved with a design, and then carved into a bas-relief (below the general surface of the metal like an Egyptian bas-relief) so that when the enamel is fused it is level with the uncarved parts of the design enamel, and the design shows through the transparent enamel.

_Painted enamels_ are different from any of these processes both in method and in result. The metal in this case is either copper, silver or gold, but usually copper. It is cut with shears into a plate of the size required, and slightly domed with a burnisher or hammer, after which it is cleaned by acid and water. Then the enamel is laid equally over the whole surface both back and front, and afterwards "fired." The first coat of enamel being fixed, the design is carried out, first by laying it in white enamel or any other which is opaque and most advantageous for subsequent coloration.

In the case of a _grisaille painted enamel_ the white is mixed with water or turpentine, or spike oil of lavender, or essential oil of petroleum (according to the taste of the artist) and the white is painted thickly in the light parts and thinly in the grey ones, whereby a slight sense of relief is obtained and a great degree of light and shade.

In _coloured painted enamels_ the white is coloured by transparent enamels spread over the _grisaille_ treatment, parts of which when fired are heightened by touches of gold, usually painted in lines. Other parts can be made more brilliant by the use of foil, over which the transparent enamels are placed and then fired. An example is shown in Plate I. fig. 7.

Enamels by the _plique-a-jour_ method might be best described as _translucent cloisonne_ enamels; for they are similar to cloisonne, except that the ground upon which they are fired is removed, thus making them transparent like stained glass.

Two new processes have been the subject of the present writer's study and experiment for several years, which he has lately brought to fruition. The first is an inlay of transparent enamels similar to _plique-a-jour_ without cloisons to divide the colours. For if enamels do not run together whilst in a melted state, as is seen in the case of painted and _basse-taille_ enamels, there should be no necessity for it in this process. The result is a clear transparent subject in colour. The other process consists of a coloured enamel relief. It resembles the della Robbia relief, with this important difference, that the colour of the enamel by its nature permeates the whole depth of the relief, whereas in the della Robbia ware it is only on the surface. It also has a fresco surface, instead of one highly glazed. The quality of the enamel is as rare and unlike anything else as it is beautiful. It is in point of fact the only coloured sculpture in which the whole of its parts are one solid homogeneous mass, and through which the colour is one with the substance and is not applied. The process consists of the shapes of the various parts of the relief being selected for the different enamels, and these enamels melted together, in the mould of the relief, which is finished with lapidary's tools.

_Miniature enamel painting_ is not true enamelling, for after the white enamel is fired upon the gold plate, the colours used are not vitreous compounds--not enamels in fact--as is the case in any other form of metal enamelling; but they are either raw oxides or other forms of metal, with a little flux added, not combined. These colours are painted on the white enamel, and afterwards made to adhere to the surface by partially fusing the enamel, which when in a state of partial fusion becomes viscous.

There are many of these so-called enamels to-day, which are much easier of accomplishment than the true enamel, but they possess none of the beautiful quality of the latter. It is most apparent when parts of a work are true enamels and parts are done in the manner described above. These enamel paintings on enamel are afterwards coated over with a transparent flux, which gives them a surface of enamel. Many are done in this way for the market.

All these methods were used formerly, before the present revival; but they were not so completely understood or carried so far as they are to-day. Nor were the whole methods practised by any artist as they are now. The greatest advance has been in painted enamels. This process requires that both sides of the metal plate shall be covered with enamel; for this reason the plate is made convex on the top, so that the concave side does not touch the _planche_ on which it is supported for firing, but rests on its edges throughout. There are several reasons why these plates are _bombe_, the principal one being that in the firing they resist the tendency to warp and curl up at the edges as a flat thin plate would do. Further, the enamel having been fused to both sides is not so liable to crack or to splint in subsequent firings. This is most important, for otherwise the white which is placed on afterwards would be a network of cracks. The manner of firing has also to do with this, but not nearly so much as the preliminary care and mechanical perfection with which a plate is prepared. Nearly all the old enamels are seen to be cracked in the white if minutely examined. To obviate this the following points must be observed: The plate must be of an excellent quality of metal, equal in thickness throughout, and perfectly regular in shape. It must be arched equally from end to end. The first coat of enamel must be of a perfectly regular equal thickness on both sides, entirely covering the plate. Whatever the medium employed in painting the white on to the enamel, it must be completely evaporated before the plate is placed in the furnace. The furnace must be heated to a bright red heat, and the _planche_ must be red-hot before being taken out for the enamel to be placed upon it, and then quickly returned to the furnace and the muffle door shut tight so as to allow no draught of cool air to enter it. Then as soon as it has begun to fuse, which if a small piece, it would do in a minute or so, the muffle door is slightly opened to afford a view of it. As soon as it shines all over its surface, it is withdrawn from the muffle.

The method of laying a white upon the enamel ground is a matter of individual taste, so far as the medium is concerned. By some, pure distilled water is preferred to any other liquid for mixing the enamel. Otherwise, turpentine and the fat oil of turpentine, as well as spike oil of lavender. The oil mixture takes longer to dry, and thus gives a greater chance for modelling into fine shades than the water. But it has several drawbacks. Firstly, there is the difficulty of drying the oil out--a process which takes some time and increases the risk of cracking in the drying process; and secondly, the enamel is not so fresh and clear after it is fired as when pure water has been employed. Besides there is a great difference in the result; the water involves a quick, decided, direct touch and method, which carries with it its own charm. The oil medium, besides giving an effect of laborious rounded stippled surfaces, is apt partly to reduce the enamel, thus giving it a dull surface. The coloration of the white is comparatively simple and is done by transparent enamels finely ground and evenly spread over the white after the latter has been fused. The only danger to be avoided is that of over-firing, which is produced by too great heat of a prolonged duration of firing, which causes the stannic and arsenious acids in the white to volatilize.

_Plique-a-jour_ enamelling is done in the same way as _cloisonne_ enamelling, except that the wires or strips of metal which enclose the enamel are not soldered to the metal base, but are soldered to each other only. Then these are simply placed upon a sheet of platinum, copper, silver, gold or hard brass, which, after the enamel is fused and sufficiently annealed and cooled, is easily removed. For small pieces of _plique-a-jour_ there is no necessity to apply any metallic base, as the particles of enamel quickly fuse, become viscous, and when drawn out set quite hard. Neither is there any need for annealing, as would be the case in larger work. For an example, see fig. 2.

Commercially there has lately been an activity in enamels such as has never before occurred. This has been the case throughout Europe, Japan and the United States of America. In London there has been a demand for a cheap form of gaudy coloured enamel, fused into sunk spaces of metal obtained by stamping with a steel die; this has been applied to small objects of cheap jewelry, in the form of brooches, bracelets and the like. There has also been a great demand for enamel watch-cases and small pendants, done mainly by hand, of a better class of work. Many of these have been produced in Birmingham, Berlin, Paris and London. In Paris copies of pictures in black and white enamel, with a little gold paint in the draperies and background, have been manufactured in very large quantities and sometimes of great dimensions. Another curious demand, followed by as astonishing a production, is that of the imitations (a harder name for which is "forgeries") of old enamels, made with much skill, giving all the technical excellence of the originals, even to the cracks and scratches incidental to age. These are duly signed, and will deceive the most expert. They are copies of enamels by Nardon and Jean Penicaud, Leonard Limosin, Pierre Raymond, Courtois and others. The same artificers also produce copies of old Chinese _cloisonne_ and _champleve_ enamels, as well as old Battersea enamel snuff-boxes, patch-boxes, and indeed every kind of enamelling formerly practised. It is advisable for the collector never to purchase any piece of enamelling as the work of an old master without having a pedigree extending at least over forty years. From Japan there has been a continuous flow of _cloisonne_ enamelled vases, boxes and plates, either entirely covered with enamel or applied in parts. Compared with this enormous output, only a few small pieces of jewelry have come from Jaipur and other towns in India. There has also been a great quantity of _plique-a-jour_ enamelling manufactured in Russia, Norway and Sweden. And finally, it has been used in an unprecedented manner in large pieces upon iron and copper for purposes of advertisement.

Amongst the chief workers in the modern revival of this art are Claudius Popelin, Alfred Meyer, Paul Grandhomme, Fernand Thesmar, Hubert von Herkomer and Alexander Fisher. The work of Claudius Popelin is characterized by good technical skill, correctness, and a careful copying of the work of the old masters. Consequently it suffers from a lack of invention and individuality. His work was devoted to the rendering of mythological subjects and fanciful portraits of historical people. Alfred Meyer and Grandhomme are both accomplished and careful enamellers; the former is a painter enameller and the author of a book dealing technically with enamelling. Grandhomme paints mythological subjects and portraits in a very tender manner, with considerably more artistic feeling than either Meyer or Popelin. There is a specimen of his work in the Luxemburg Museum. Fernand Thesmar is the great reviver of _plique-a-jour_ enamelling in France. Specimens of his work are possessed by the art museums throughout Europe, and one is to be seen in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. They are principally valued on account of their perfect technical achievement. Lucien Falize was an employer of artists and craftsmen, and to him we are indebted for the production of specimens of _basse-taille_ enamel upon silver and gold, as well as for a book reviewing the revival of the art in France, bearing particularly on the work of Claudius Popelin. Until within recent years there was a clear division between the art and the crafts in the system of producing art objects. The artist was one person and the workman another. It is now acknowledged that the artist must also be the craftsman, especially in the higher branches of enamelling. M. Falize initiated the production of a gold cup which was enamelled in the _basse-taille_ manner. The band of figures was designed by Olivier Merson, the painter, and carved by a metal carver and enamelled by an enameller, both able craftsmen employed by M. Falize. Other pieces of enamelling in _champleve_ and _cloisonne_ were also produced under his supervision and on this system; therefore lacking the one quality which would make them complete as an expression of artistic emotion by the artist's own hands. M. Rene Lalique is among the jewellers who have applied enamelling to their work in a peculiarly technically perfect manner. In England, Professor Hubert von Herkomer has produced painted enamels of considerable dimensions, aiming at the execution of pictures in enamel, such as have been generally regarded as peculiar to the province of oil or water-colour painting. Among numerous works is a large shield, into which plaques of enamel are inserted, as well as several portraits, one of which, made in several pieces, is 6 ft. high--a portrait of the emperor William II. of Germany. The present writer rediscovered the making of many enamels, the secrets of which had been jealously guarded. He has worked in all these processes, developing them from the art side, and helping to make enamelling not only a decorative adjunct to metal-work, but raising it to a fine art. His work may be seen in the Victoria and Albert Museum, and Brussels Museum. Others who have been enamelling with success in various branches, and who have shown individuality in their work, are Mr John Eyre, Mrs Nelson Dawson, Miss Hart.

LITERATURE.--Among older books on enamelling, apart from the works of Neri and Benvenuto Cellini, are J.-P. Ferrand, _L'Art du feu, ou de peindre en email_ (1721); Labarte, _Recherches sur la peinture en email_ (Paris, 1856); Marquis de Laborde, _Notice des emaux du Louvre_ (Paris, 1852); Reboulleau, _Nouveau manuel complet de la peinture en verre, sur porcelaine et sur email_ (ed. by Magnier, Paris, 1866); Claudius Popelin, _L'Email des peintres_ (Paris, 1866); Emil Molinier, _Dictionnaire des emailleurs_ (1885). Among useful recent books are H. Cunynghame's _Art of Enamelling on Metals_ (1906); L. Falize, _Claudius Popelin et la renaissance des emaux peints_; L. Dalpayrat, _Limoges Enamels_; Alexander Fisher, _The Art of Enamelling upon Metal_ (1906, "The Studio," London). (A. Fi.*).

ENCAENIA, a festival commemorating a dedication, in Greek [Greek: ta henkainia] ([Greek: kainos], new), particularly used of the anniversary of the dedication of a church (see DEDICATION). The term is also used at the university of Oxford of the annual Commemoration, held in June, of founders and benefactors (see OXFORD).

ENCAUSTIC PAINTING. The name _encaustic_ (from the Greek for "burnt in") is applied to paintings executed with vehicles in which wax is the chief ingredient. The term was appropriately applied to the ancient methods of painting in wax, because these required heat to effect them. Wax may be used as a vehicle for painting without heat being requisite; nevertheless the ancient term _encaustic_ has been retained, and is indiscriminately applied to all methods of painting in wax. The durability of wax, and its power of resisting the effects of the atmosphere, were well known to the Greeks, who used it for the protection of their sculptures. As a vehicle for painting it was commonly employed by them and by the Romans and Egyptians; but in recent times it has met with only a limited application. Of modern encaustic paintings those by Schnorr in the Residenz at Munich are the most important. Modern paintings in wax, in their chromatic range and in their general effect, occupy a middle place between those executed in oil and in fresco. Wax painting is not so easy as oil, but presents fewer technical difficulties than fresco.

Ancient authors often make mention of _encaustic_, which, if it had been described by the word _inurere_, to burn in, one might have supposed to have been a species of enamel painting. But the expressions "incausto pingere," "pictura encaustica," "ceris pingere," "pictura inurere," used by Pliny and other ancient writers, make it clear that some other species of painting is meant. Pliny distinguishes three species of encaustic painting. In the first they used a stylus, and painted either on ivory or on polished wood, previously saturated with some certain colour; the point of the stylus or stigma served for this operation, and its broad or blade end cleared off the small filaments which arose from the outlines made by the stylus in the wax preparation. In the second method it appears that the wax colours, being prepared beforehand, and formed into small cylinders for use, were smoothly spread by the spatula after the outlines were determined, and thus the picture was proceeded with and finished. By the side of the painter stood a brazier which was used to heat the spatula and probably the prepared colours. This is the method which was probably used by the painters who decorated the houses of Herculaneum and of Pompeii, as artists practising this method of painting are depicted in the decorations. The third method was by painting by a brush dipped into wax liquefied by heat; the colours so applied attained considerable hardness, and could not be damaged either by the heat of the sun or by the effects of sea-water. It was thus that ships were decorated; and this kind of encaustic was therefore styled "ship-painting."

About the year 1749 Count Caylus and J.J. Bachelier, a painter, made some experiments in encaustic painting, and the count undertook to explain an obscure passage in Pliny, supposed to be the following (xxxv. 39):--"Ceris pingere ac picturam inurere quis primus excogitaverit non constat. Quidam Aristidis inventum putant, postea consummatum a Praxitele; sed aliquanto vetustiores encausticae picturae exstitere, ut Polygnoti et Nicanoris et Arcesilai Pariorum. Lysippus quoque Aeginae picturae suae inscripsit [Greek: enekausen], quod profecto non fecisset nisi encaustica inventa." There are other passages in Pliny bearing upon this subject, in one of which (xxi. 49) he gives an account of the preparation of "Punica cera." The nature of this Punic wax, which was the essential ingredient of the ancient painting in encaustic, has not been definitely ascertained. The chevalier Lorgna, who investigated the subject in a small but valuable tract, asserts that the _nitron_ which Pliny mentions is not the nitre of the moderns, but the _natron_ of the ancients, viz. the native salt which is found crystallized in Egypt and other hot countries in sands surrounding lakes of salt water. This substance the Carthaginians, according to Pliny, used in preparing their wax, and hence the name Punic seems to be derived. Lorgna made a number of experiments with this salt, using from three to twenty parts of white melted wax with one of natron. He held the mixture in an iron vessel over a slow fire, stirring it gently with a wooden spatula, till the mass assumed the consistency of butter and the colour of milk. He then removed it from the fire, and put it in the shade in the open air to harden. The wax being cooled liquefied in water, and a milky emulsion resulted from it like that which could be made with the best Venetian soap.

Experiments, it is said, were made with this wax in painting in encaustic in the apartments of the Count Giovanni Battista Gasola by the Italian painter Antonio Paccheri, who dissolved the Punic wax when it was not so much hardened as to require to be "igni resoluta," as expressed by Pliny, with pure water slightly infused with gum-arabic, instead of sarcocolla, mentioned by Pliny. He afterwards mixed the colours with this wax so liquefied as he would have done with oil, and proceeded to paint in the same manner; nor were the colours seen to run or alter in the least; and the mixture was so flexible that the pencil ran smoother than it would have done with oil. The painting being dry, he treated it with caustic, and rubbed it with linen cloths, by which the colours acquired peculiar vivacity and brightness.

About the year 1755 further experiments were made by Count Caylus and several French artists. One method was to melt wax with oil of turpentine as a vehicle for the colours. It is well known that wax may be dissolved in spirit and used as a medium, but it dries too quickly to allow of perfect blending, and would by the evaporation of the spirit be prejudicial to the artist's health. Another method suggested about this time, and one which seems to tally very well with Pliny's description, is the following. Melt the wax with strong solution of salt of tartar, and let the colours be ground up in it. Place the picture when finished before the fire till by degrees the wax melts, swells, and is bloated up upon the picture; the picture is then gradually removed from the fire, and the colours, without being injuriously affected by the operation of the fire, become unalterable, spirits of wine having been burnt upon them without doing the least harm. Count Caylus's method was different, and much simpler: (1) the cloth or wood designed for the picture is waxed over, by rubbing it simply with a piece of beeswax; (2) the colours are mixed up with pure water; but as these colours will not adhere to the wax, the whole ground must be rubbed over with chalk or whiting before the colour is applied; and (3) when the picture is dry it is put near the fire, whereby the wax is melted and absorbs the colours. It must be allowed that nothing could well be simpler than this process, and it was thought that this kind of painting would be capable of withstanding the weather and of lasting longer than oil painting. This kind of painting has not the gloss of oil painting, so that the picture may be seen in any light, a quality of the very first importance in all methods of mural painting. The colours too, when so secured, are firm, and will bear washing, and have a property which is perhaps more important still, viz. that exposure to smoke and foul vapours merely leaves a deposit on the surface without injuring the work. The "encausto pingendi" of the ancients could not have been enamelling, as the word "inurere," taken in its rigorous sense, might at first lead one to suppose, nor could it have been painting produced in the same manner as encaustic tiles or encaustic tesserae; but that it must have been something akin to the count's process would appear from the words of Pliny already quoted, "Ceris pingere ac picturam inurere."

Werner of Neustadt found the following process very effectual in making wax soluble in water. For each pound of white wax he took twenty-four ounces of potash, which he dissolved in two pints of water, warming it gently. In this ley he boiled the wax, cut into little bits, for half an hour, after which he removed it from the fire and allowed it to cool. The wax floated on the surface of the liquor in the form of a white saponaceous matter; and this being triturated with water produced a sort of emulsion, which he called wax milk, or encaustic wax. This preparation may be mixed with all kinds of colours, and consequently can be applied in a single operation.

Mrs Hooker of Rottingdean, at the end of the 18th century, made many experiments to establish a method of painting in wax, and received a gold palette from the Society of Arts for her investigations in this branch of art. Her account is printed in the tenth volume of the Society's Transactions (1792), under the name of Miss Emma Jane Greenland.

See also Lorgna, _Un Discorso sulla cera punica_; Pittore Vicenzo Requeno, _Saggi sul ristabilimento dell' antica arte de' Greci e Romani_ (Parma, 1787); _Phil. Trans_. vol. xlix. part 2; Muntz on _Encaustic Painting_; W. Cave Thomas, _Methods of Mural Decoration_ (London, 1869); Cros and Henry, _L'Encaustique_, &c. (1884); Donner von Richter, _Uber Technisches in der Malerei der Alten_ (1885). (W. C. T.)

ENCEINTE (Lat. _in_, within, _cinctus_, girdled; to be distinguished from the word meaning "pregnant," from _in_, not, and _cinctus_, i.e. with girdle loosened), a French term used technically in fortification for the inner ring of fortifications surrounding a town. Strictly the term was applied to the continuous line of bastions and curtains forming the "body of the place," this last expression being often used as synonymous with _enceinte_. The outworks, however, close to the enceinte were not considered as forming part of it. In modern fortification the enceinte is usually simply the innermost continuous line of fortifications. In architecture generally an enceinte is the close or precinct of a cathedral, abbey, castle, &c.

ENCINA, JUAN DEL (1469-c. 1533), often called the founder of the Spanish drama, was born in 1469 near Salamanca probably at Encinas. On leaving the university of Salamanca he became a member of the household of the second duke of Alva. In 1492 the poet entertained his patron with a dramatic piece, the _Triunfo de la fama_, written to commemorate the fall of Granada. In 1496 he published his _Cancionero_, a collection of dramatic and lyrical poems. Some years afterwards he visited Rome, attracted the attention of Alexander VI. by his skill in music, and was appointed choirmaster. About 1518 Encina took orders, and made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where he said his first mass. Since 1509 he had held a lay canonry at Malaga; in 1519 he was appointed prior of Leon and is said to have died at Salamanca about 1533. His _Cancionero_ is preceded by a prose treatise (_Arte de trobar_) on the condition of the poetic art in Spain. His fourteen dramatic pieces mark the transition from the purely ecclesiastical to the secular stage. The _Aucto del Repelon_ and the _Egloga de Fileno_ dramatize the adventures of shepherds; the latter, like _Placida y Vitoriano_, is strongly influenced by the _Celestina_. The intrinsic interest of Encina's plays is slight, but they are important from the historical point of view, for the lay pieces form a new departure, and the devout eclogues prepare the way for the _autos_ of the 17th century. Moreover, Encina's _lyrical poems_ are remarkable for their intense sincerity and devout grace.

Bibliography.--_Teatro completo de Juan del Encina_ (Madrid, 1893), edited by F. Asenjo Barbieri; _Cancionero musical de los siglos XV y XVI_ (Madrid, 1894), edited by F. Asenjo Barbieri; R. Mitjana, _Sobre Juan del Encina, musico y poeta_ (Malaga, 1895); M. Menendez y Pelayo, _Antologia depoetas liricos castellanos_ (Madrid, 1890-1903), vol. vii.

ENCKE, JOHANN FRANZ (1791-1865), German astronomer, was born at Hamburg on the 23rd of September 1791. Matriculating at the university of Gottingen in 1811, he began by devoting himself to astronomy under Carl Friedrich Gauss; but he enlisted in the Hanseatic Legion for the campaign of 1813-14, and became lieutenant of artillery in the Prussian service in 1815. Having returned to Gottingen in 1816, he was at once appointed by Benhardt von Lindenau his assistant in the observatory of Seeberg near Gotha. There he completed his investigation of the comet of 1680, for which the Cotta prize was awarded to him in 1817; he correctly assigned a period of 71 years to the comet of 1812; and discovered the swift circulation of the remarkable comet which bears his name (see Comet). Eight masterly treatises on its movements were published by him in the Berlin _Abhandlungen_ (1829-1859). From a fresh discussion of the transits of Venus in 1761 and 1769 he deduced (1822-1824) a solar parallax of 8".57, long accepted as authoritative. In 1822 he became director of the Seeberg observatory, and in 1825 was promoted to a corresponding position at Berlin, where a new observatory, built under his superintendence, was inaugurated in 1835. He directed the preparation of the star-maps of the Berlin academy 1830-1859, edited from 1830 and greatly improved the _Astronomisches Jahrbuch_, and issued four volumes of the _Astronomische Beobachtungen_ of the Berlin observatory (1840-1857). Much labour was bestowed by him upon facilitating the computation of the movements of the asteroids. With this end in view he expounded to the Berlin academy in 1849 a mode of determining an elliptic orbit from three observations, and communicated to that body in 1851 a new method of calculating planetary perturbations by means of rectangular co-ordinates (republished in W. Ostwald's _Klassiker der exacten Wissenschaften_, No. 141, 1903). Encke visited England in 1840. Incipient brain-disease compelled him to withdraw from official life in November 1863, and he died at Spandau on the 26th of August 1865. He contributed extensively to the periodical literature of astronomy, and was twice, in 1823 and 1830, the recipient of the Royal Astronomical Society's gold medal.

See _Johann Franz Encke, sein Leben und Wirken_, von Dr C. Bruhns (Leipzig, 1869), to which a list of his writings is appended. Also, _Month. Notices Roy. Astr. Society_, xxvi. 129; _V.J.S. Astr. Gesellschaft_, iv. 227; Berlin. _Abhandlungen_ (1866), i., G. Hagen; _Sitzungsberichte_, Munich Acad. (1866), i. p. 395, &c. (A. M. C.)

ENCLAVE (a French word from _enclaver_, to enclose), a term signifying a country or, more commonly, an outlying portion of a country, entirely surrounded by the territories of a foreign or other power, such as the detached portions of Prussia, Saxony, &c, enclosed in the Thuringian States. (From the point of view of the states possessing such detached portions of territory these become "exclaves.") "Enclave" is, however, generally used in a looser sense to describe a colony or other territory of a state, which, while possessing a seaboard, is entirely surrounded landward by the possession of some other power; or, if inland territory, nearly though not entirely so enclosed, e.g. the Lado Enclave in equatorial Africa.

ENCOIGNURE, in furniture, literally the angle, or return, formed by the junction of two walls. The word is now chiefly used to designate a small armoire, commode, cabinet or cupboard made to fit a corner; a _chaise encoignure_ is called in English a three-cornered chair. In its origin the thing, like the word, is French, and the delightful Louis Quinze or Louis Seize _encoignure_ in lacquer or in mahogany elaborately mounted in gilded bronze is not the least alluring piece of the great period of French furniture. It was made in a vast variety of forms so far as the front was concerned; in other respects it was strictly limited by its destination. As a rule these delicate and dainty receptacles were in pairs and placed in opposite angles; more often than not the top was formed of a slab of coloured marble.

ENCYCLICAL (from Late Lat. _encyclicus_, for _encyclius_ = Gr. [Greek: enkyklios], from [Greek: en] and [Greek: kyklos], "a circle"), an ecclesiastical epistle intended for general circulation, now almost exclusively used of such letters issued by the pope. The forms _encyclica_ and _encyclic_ are sometimes, but more rarely, used. The old adjectival use of the word in the sense of "general" (encircling) is now obsolete, though it survives in the term "encyclopaedia."

ENCYCLOPAEDIA. The Greeks seem to have understood by encyclopaedia ([Greek: enkyklopaideia], or [Greek: enkyklios paideia]) instruction in the whole circle ([Greek: en kyklo]) or complete system of learning--education in arts and sciences. Thus Pliny, in the preface to his _Natural History_, says that his book treated of all the subjects of the encyclopaedia of the Greeks, "Jam omnia attingenda quae Graeci [Greek: tes enkyklopaideias] vocant." Quintilian (_Inst. Orat_. i. 10) directs that before boys are placed under the rhetorician they should be instructed in the other arts, "ut efficiatur orbis ille doctrinae quam Graeci [Greek: enkyklopaideian] vocant." Galen (_De victus ratione in morbis acutis_, c. 11) speaks of those who are not educated [Greek: en te enkyklopaideia]. In these passages of Pliny and Quintilian, however, from one or both of which the modern use of the word seems to have been taken, [Greek: enkyklios paideia] is now read, and this seems to have been the usual expression. Vitruvius (lib. vi. praef.) calls the encyclios or [Greek: enkyklios paideia] of the Greeks "doctrinarum omnium disciplina," instruction in all branches of learning. Strabo (lib. iv. cap. 10) speaks of philosophy [Greek: kai ten allen paideian enkyklion]. Tzetzes (_Chiliades_, xi. 527), quoting from Porphyry's _Lives of the Philosophers_, says that [Greek: enkyklia mathemata] was the circle of grammar, rhetoric, philosophy and the four arts under it, arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy. Zonaras explains it as grammar, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, mathematics and simply every art and science ([Greek: aplos pasa techne kai episteme]), because sophists go through them as through a circle. The idea seems to be a complete course of instruction in all parts of knowledge. An epic poem was called cyclic when it contained the whole mythology; and among physicians [Greek: kyklo therapeuein], _cyclo curare_ (Vegetius, _De arte veterinaria_, ii. 5, 6), meant a cure effected by a regular and prescribed course of diet and medicine (see Wower, _De polymathia_, c. 24, S 14).

The word encyclopaedia was probably first used in English by Sir Thomas Elyot. "In an oratour is required to be a heape of all maner of lernyng: whiche of some is called the worlde of science, of other the circle of doctrine, whiche is in one worde of greke Encyclopedia" (_The Governour_, bk. i. chap. xiii.). In his Latin dictionary, 1538, he explains "Encyclios et Encyclia, the cykle or course of all doctrines," and "Encyclopedia, that lernynge whiche comprehendeth all lyberall science and studies." The term does not seem to have been used as the title of a book by the ancients or in the middle ages. The edition of the works of Joachimus Fortius Ringelbergius, printed at Basel in 1541, is called on the title-page _Lucubrationes vel potius absolutissima_ [Greek: kyklopaideia]. Paulus Scalichius de Lika, an Hungarian count, wrote _Encyclopaediae seu orbis disciplinarum epistemon_ (Basileae, 1599, 4to). Alsted published in 1608 _Encyclopaedia cursus philosophici_, and afterwards expanded this into his great work, noticed below, calling it without any limitation _Encyclopaedia_, because it treats of everything that can be learned by man in this life. This is now the most usual sense in which the word encyclopaedia is used--a book treating of all the various kinds of knowledge. The form "cyclopaedia" is not merely without any appearance of classical authority, but is etymologically less definite, complete and correct. For as Cyropaedia means "the instruction of Cyrus," so cyclopaedia may mean "instruction of a circle." Vossius says, "Cyclopaedia is sometimes found, but the best writers say encyclopaedia" (_De vitiis sermonis_, 1645, p. 402). Gesner says, "[Greek: kyklos] est _circulus_, quae figura est simplicissima et perfectissima simul: nam incipi potest ubicunque in illa et ubicunque cohaeret. _Cyclopaedia_ itaque significat omnem doctrinarum scientiam inter se cohaerere; _Encyclopaedia_ est institutio in illo circulo." (_Isagoge_, 1774, i. 40).

In a more restricted sense, encyclopaedia means a system or classification of the various branches of knowledge, a subject on which many books have been published, especially in Germany, as Schmid's _Allgemeine Encyklopadie und Methodologie der Wissenschaften_ (Jena, 1810, 4to, 241 pages). In this sense the _Novum Organum_ of Bacon has often been called an encyclopaedia. But it is "a grammar only of the sciences: a cyclopaedia is not a grammar, but a dictionary; and to confuse the meanings of grammar and dictionary is to lose the benefit of a distinction which it is fortunate that terms have been coined to convey" (_Quarterly Review_, cxiii. 354). Fortunius Licetus, an Italian physician, entitled several of his dissertations on Roman altars and other antiquities encyclopaedias (as, for instance, _Encyclopaedia ad. Aram mysticam Nonarii,_ Pataviae, 1631, 4to), because in composing them he borrowed the aid of all the sciences. The _Encyclopaedia moralis_ of Marcellinus de Pise (Paris, 1646, fol., 4 vols.) is a series of sermons. Encyclopaedia is often used to mean a book which is, or professes to be, a complete or very full collection or treatise relating to some particular subject, as Blaine's work, _The Encyclopaedia of Rural Sports_ (London, 1852); _The Encyclopaedia of Wit_ (London, 1803); _The Vocal Encyclopaedia_ (London, 1807, 16mo), a collection of songs, catches, &c. The word is frequently used for an alphabetical dictionary treating fully of some science or subject, as Murray, _Encyclopaedia of Geography_ (London, 1834); Lefebvre Laboulaye, _Encyclopedie technologique: Dictionnaire des arts et manufactures_ (Paris, 1845-1847). Whether under the name of "dictionary" or "encyclopaedia" large numbers of this class of reference-work have been published. These are essentially encyclopaedic, being _subject books_ and not _word-books_. The important books of this character are referred to in the articles dealing with the respective subjects, but the following may be mentioned here: the _Jewish Encyclopedia_, in 12 vols. (1901), a descriptive record of the history, religion, literature and customs of the Jewish people from the earliest times; the _Encyclopaedia of Sport_, 2 vols. (1897-1898); Holtzendorff's _Encyklopadie der Rechtswissenschaft_ (1870; an edition in 2 vols., 1904); the _Dictionary of Political Economy_, edited by R.H. Inglis Palgrave, 3 vols. (1894; reprinted 1901); the Encyclopaedia Biblica, edited by T.K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, 4 vols. (1899-1903); the _Dictionary of the Bible_, edited by James Hastings, 4 vols., with a supplementary volume (1904); an interesting series is the _Repertoire general du commerce_, dealing with the foreign trade of France, of which one part, the _Encyclopaedia of Trade between the United States of America and France_, with a preface by M. Gabriel Hanotaux, appeared, in French and English, in 1904.

The great Chinese encyclopaedias are referred to in the article on CHINESE LITERATURE. It will be sufficient to mention here the _Wen hien t'ung k'ao_, compiled by Ma Twa-lin in the 14th century, the encyclopaedia ordered to be compiled by the Emperor Yung-loh in the 15th century, and the _Ku Kin t'u shu thi ch'eng_ prepared for the Emperor K'ang-hi (d. 1721), in 5020 volumes. A copy of this enormous work, bound in some 700 volumes, is in the British Museum.

The most ancient encyclopaedia extant is Pliny's _Natural History_ in 37 books (including the preface) and 2493 chapters, which may be thus described generally:--book 1, preface; book 2, cosmography, astronomy and meteorology; books 3 to 6, geography; books 7 to 11, zoology, including man, and the invention of the arts; books 12 to 19, botany; books 20 to 32, medicines, vegetable and animal remedies, medical authors and magic; books 33 to 37, metals, fine arts, mineralogy and mineral remedies. Pliny, who died A.D. 79, was not a naturalist, a physician or an artist, and collected his work in his leisure intervals while engaged in public affairs. He says it contains 20,000 facts (too small a number by half, says Lemaire), collected from 2000 books by 100 authors. Hardouin has given a list of 464 authors quoted by him. His work was a very high authority in the middle ages, and 43 editions of it were printed before 1536.

Martianus Minneus Felix Capella, an African, wrote (early in the 5th cent.), in verse and prose, a sort of encyclopaedia, which is important from having been regarded in the middle ages as a model storehouse of learning, and used in the schools, where the scholars had to learn the verses by heart, as a text-book of high-class education in the arts. It is sometimes entitled _Satyra_, or _Satyricon_, but is usually known as _De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii_, though this title is sometimes confined to the first two books, a rather confused allegory ending with the apotheosis of Philologia and the celebration of her marriage in the milky way, where Apollo presents to her the seven liberal arts, who, in the succeeding seven books, describe their respective branches of knowledge, namely, grammar, dialectics (divided into metaphysics and logic), rhetoric, geometry (geography, with some single geometrical propositions), arithmetic (chiefly the properties of numbers), astronomy and music (including poetry). The style is that of an African of the 5th century, full of grandiloquence, metaphors and strange words. He seldom mentions his authorities, and sometimes quotes authors whom he does not even seem to have read. His work was frequently copied in the middle ages by ignorant transcribers, and was eight times printed from 1499 to 1599. The best annotated edition is by Kopp (Frankfort, 1836, 4to), and the most convenient and the best text is that of Eysserhardt (Lipsiae, 1866, 8vo).

Isidore, bishop of Seville from 600 to 630, wrote _Etymologiarum libri XX_. (often also entitled his _Origines_) at the request of his friend Braulio, bishop of Saragossa, who after Isidore's death divided the work into books, as it was left unfinished, and divided only into titles.

The tenth book is an alphabet of 625 Latin words, not belonging to his other subjects, with their explanations as known to him, and often with their etymologies, frequently very absurd. The other books contain 448 chapters, and are:--1, grammar (Latin); 2, rhetoric and dialectics; 3, the four mathematical disciplines--arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy; 4, medicine; 5, laws and times (chronology), with a short chronicle ending in 627; 6, ecclesiastical books and offices; 7, God, angels and the orders of the faithful; 8, the church and sects; 9, languages, society and relationships; 11, man and portents; 12, animals, in eight classes, namely, pecora et jumenta, beasts, small animals (including spiders, crickets and ants), serpents, worms, fishes, birds and small winged creatures, chiefly insects; 13, the world and its parts; 14, the earth and its parts, containing chapters on Asia, Europe and Libya, that is, Africa; 15, buildings, fields and their measures; 16, stones (of which one is echo) and metals; 17, de rebus rusticis; 18, war and games; 19, ships, buildings and garments; 20, provisions, domestic and rustic instruments.

Isidore appears to have known Hebrew and Greek, and to have been familiar with the Latin classical poets, but he is a mere collector, and his derivations given all through the work are not unfrequently absurd, and, unless when very obvious, will not bear criticism. He seldom mentions his authorities except when he quotes the poets or historians. Yet his work was a great one for the time, and for many centuries was a much valued authority and a rich source of material for other works, and he had a high reputation for learning both in his own time and in subsequent ages. His _Etymologies_ were often imitated, quoted and copied. MSS. are very numerous: Antonio (whose editor, Bayer, saw nearly 40) says, "plures passimque reperiuntur in bibliothecarum angulis." This work was printed nine times before 1529.

Hrabanus Maurus, whose family name was Magnentius, was educated in the abbey of Fulda, ordained deacon in 802 ("Annales Francorum" in Bouquet, _Historiens de la France_, v. 66), sent to the school of St Martin of Tours, then directed by Alcuin, where he seems to have learned Greek, and is said by Trithemius to have been taught Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldee by Theophilus an Ephesian. In his _Commentaries on Joshua_ (lib. ii. c. 5) he speaks of having resided at Sidon. He returned to Fulda and taught the school there. He became abbot of Fulda in 822, resigned in April 842, was ordained archbishop of Mainz on the 26th of July 847, and died on the 4th of February 856. He compiled an encyclopaedia _De universo_ (also called in some MSS. _De universali natura, De natura rerum,_ and _De origine rerum_) in 22 books and 325 chapters. It is chiefly a rearrangement of Isidore's _Etymologies_, omitting the first four books, half of the fifth and the tenth (the seven liberal arts, law, medicine and the alphabet of words), and copying the rest, beginning with the seventh book, verbally, though with great omissions, and adding (according to Ritter, _Geschichte der Philosophie_, vii. 193, from Alcuin, Augustine or some other accessible source) the meanings given in the Bible to the subject matter of the chapter; while things not mentioned in Scripture, especially such as belong to classical antiquity, are omitted, so that his work seems to be formed of two alternating parts. His arrangement of beginning with God and the angels long prevailed in methodical encyclopaedias. His last six books follow very closely the order of the last five of Isidore, from which they are taken. His omissions are characteristic of the diminished literary activity and more contracted knowledge of his time. His work was presented to Louis the German, king of Bavaria, at Hersfeld in October 847, and was printed in 1473, fol., probably at Venice, and again at Strassburg by Mentelin about 1472-1475, fol., 334 pages.

Michael Constantine Psellus, the younger, wrote [Greek: Didaskalia pantodape], dedicated to the emperor Michael Ducas, who reigned 1071-1078. It was printed by Fabricius in his _Bibliotheca Graeca_ (1712), vol. v., in 186 pages 4to and 193 chapters, each containing a question and answer. Beginning with divinity, it goes on through natural history and astronomy, and ends with chapters on excessive hunger, and why flesh hung from a fig-tree becomes tender. As collation with a Turin MS. showed that 35 chapters were wanting, Harles has omitted the text in his edition of Fabricius, and gives only the titles of the chapters (x. 84-88).

The author of the most famous encyclopaedia of the middle ages was Vincent (q.v.) of Beauvais (c. 1190-c. 1264), whose work _Bibliotheca mundi_ or _Speculum majus_--divided, as we have it, into four parts, _Speculum naturale_, _Speculum doctrinale_, _Speculum morale_ (this part should be ascribed to a later hand), and _Speculum historiale_--was the great compendium of mid-13th century knowledge. Vincent of Beauvais preserved several works of the middle ages and gives extracts from many lost classics and valuable readings of others, and did more than any other medieval writer to awaken a taste for classical literature. Fabricius (_Bibl. Graeca_, 1728, xiv. pp. 107-125) has given a list of 328 authors, Hebrew, Arabic, Greek and Latin, quoted in the _Speculum naturale_. To these should be added about 100 more for the _doctrinale_ and _historiale_. As Vincent did not know Greek or Arabic, he used Latin translations. This work is dealt with separately in the article on VINCENT OF BEAUVAIS.

Brunetto Latini of Florence (born 1230, died 1294), the master of Dante and Guido Cavalcanti, while an exile in France between 1260 and 1267, wrote in French _Li Livres dou Tresor_, in 3 books and 413 chapters.