EMMONS

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.