The next three or four years were employed by Emin in various journeys through his province, and in the initiation of schemes for its development, until in 1882, on his return from a visit to Khartum, he became aware that the Mahdist rising, which had originated in Kordofan, was spreading southward. The effect of the rising was, of course, more markedly felt in Emin’s province after the abandonment of the Sudan by the Egyptian government in 1884. He was obliged to give up several of his stations in face of the Mahdist advance, and ultimately to retire from Lado, which had been his capital, to Wadelai. This last step followed upon his receipt of a letter from Nubar Pasha, informing him that it was impossible for the Egyptian government to send him help, and that he must stay in his province or retire towards the coast as best he could. Emin (who about this time was raised to the rank of pasha) had some thoughts of a retreat to Zanzibar, but decided to remain where he was and endeavour to hold his own. To this end he carried on protracted negotiations with neighbouring native potentates. When, in 1887, (Sir) H.M. Stanley’s expedition was on its way to relieve him, it is clear from Emin’s diary that he had no wish to leave his province, even if relieved. He had done good work there, and established a position which he believed himself able to maintain. He hoped, however, that the presence of Stanley’s force, when it came, would strengthen his position; but the condition of the relieving party, when it arrived in April 1888, did not seem to Emin to promise this. Stanley’s proposal to Emin, as stated in the latter’s diary, was that Emin should either remain as governor-general on behalf of the king of the Belgians, or establish himself on Victoria Nyanza on behalf of a group of English merchants who wished to start an enterprise in Africa on the model of the East India Company. After much hesitation, and prompted by a growing disaffection amongst the natives (owing, as he maintained, to his loss of prestige after the arrival of Stanley’s force), Emin decided to accompany Stanley to the coast, where the expedition arrived in December 1889. Unfortunately, on the evening of a reception dinner given in his honour, Emin met with an accident which resulted in fracture of the skull. Careful nursing gradually restored him to health, and on his convalescence he resolutely maintained his decision to remain in Africa, and, if possible, to work there in future on behalf of the German government. The seal was definitely set upon this decision by his formal engagement on behalf of his native country, early in 1890. Preparations for a new expedition into the interior were set on foot, and meanwhile Emin was honoured in various ways by learned societies in Germany and elsewhere.
The object of the new expedition was (to quote Emin’s instructions) “to secure on behalf of Germany the territories situated south of and along Victoria Nyanza up to Albert Nyanza,” and to “make known to the population there that they were placed under German supremacy and protection, and to break or undermine Arab influence as far as possible.” The force, which was well equipped, started at the end of April 1890. But before it had penetrated far inland the political reasons for sending the expedition vanished with the signature, on the 1st of July 1890, of the Anglo-German agreement defining the spheres of influence of the two nations, an agreement which excluded the Albert Nyanza region from the German sphere. For a time things went well enough with the expedition; Emin occupied the important town of Tabora on the route from the coast to Tanganyika and established the post of Bukoba on Victoria Nyanza, but by degrees ill-fortune clouded its prospects. Difficulties on the route; dissensions between Emin and the authorities in German East Africa, and misunderstandings on the part of both; epidemics of disease in Emin’s force, followed by a growing spirit of mutiny among his native followers; an illness of a painful nature which attacked him—all these gradually undermined Emin’s courage, and his diaries at the close of 1891 reflect a gloomy and almost hopeless spirit. In May that year he had crossed into the Congo State by the south shore of Albert Edward Nyanza, and many months were spent on the borders of the great Congo Forest and in the Undusuma country south-west of Albert Nyanza, breaking ground new to Europeans. In December 1891 he sent off his companion, Dr Stuhlmann, with the bulk of the caravan, on the way back to the east coast. Emin remained behind with the sick, and with a very reduced following left the lake district in March 1892 for the Congo river. On reaching Ipoto on the Ituri he came within the region of the Arab slave raiders and ivory hunters, in whose company he at times travelled. These gentry were incensed against Emin for the energetic way in which he had dealt with their comrades while in German territory, and against Europeans generally by the campaign for their suppression begun by the Congo State. At the instigation of one of these Arabs Emin was murdered on the 23rd or 24th of October 1892 at Kinena, a place about 80 m. E.S.E. of Stanley Falls.
See Emin Pasha, his Life and Work, by Georg Schweitzer, with introduction by R.W. Felkin (2 vols., London, 1898); Emin Pasha in Central Africa (London, 1888), a collection of Emin’s papers contributed to scientific journals; and Mit Emin Pascha ins Herz von Afrika (Berlin, 1894), by Dr Franz Stuhlmann. Major G. Casati (1838-1902), an Italian officer who spent several years with Emin, and accompanied him and Stanley to the coast, narrated his experiences in Dieci anni in Equatoria (English edition, Ten Years in Equatoria and the Return with Emin Pasha, London, 1891).
EMLYN, THOMAS (1663-1741), English nonconformist divine, was born at Stamford, Lincolnshire. He served as chaplain to the presbyterian Letitia, countess of Donegal, and then to Sir Robert Rich, afterwards (1691) becoming colleague to Joseph Boyse, presbyterian minister in Dublin. From this office he was virtually dismissed on his own confession of unitarianism, and for publishing An Humble Inquiry into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ (1702) was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and a fine of £1000. Thanks to the intervention of Boyse he was released in 1705 on payment of £90. He is said to have been the first English preacher definitely to describe himself as “unitarian,” and writes in his diary, “I thank God that He did not call me to this lot of suffering till I had arrived at maturity of judgment and firmness of resolution, and that He did not desert me when my friends did. He never let me be so cast down as to renounce the truth or to waver in my faith.” Of Christ he writes, “We may regard with fervent gratitude so great a benefactor, but our esteem and rational love must ascend higher and not rest till it centre in his God and ours.” Emlyn preached a good deal in Paul’s Alley, Barbican, in his later years, and died in London in 1741.
EMMANUEL, or Immanuel, a Hebrew symbolical proper name, meaning “God (is) with us.” When in 734-733 B.C. Ahaz, king of Judah, alarmed at the preparations made against him by the Syro-Ephraimitish alliance, was inclined to seek aid from Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, the prophet Isaiah endeavoured to allay his fear by telling him that the danger would pass away, and as a sign from Yahweh that this should be so, any young woman who should within the year bear a son, might call his name Immanuel in token of the divine protection accorded to Judah. For before the infant should come to even the immature intelligence of childhood the lands of the foe would be laid waste (Isaiah vii. 14-16). For other interpretations, especially as regards the mother, see Ency. Bib. col. 2162-3, and the commentaries. In the post-exilic period the historical meaning of the passage was forgotten, and a new significance was given to it in accordance with the gradually developing eschatological doctrine. This new interpretation finds expression in Matt. i. 23, where the name is applied to Jesus as the Messiah. At the close of Isaiah viii. 8 for “of thy land, O Immanuel,” we should probably read “of the land, for God is with us.” The three passages quoted are the only instances where this word occurs in Scripture; it is frequent in hymns and devotional literature as a title of Jesus Christ.
EMMANUEL PHILIBERT (1528-1580), duke of Savoy, son of Charles III. and Beatrice of Portugal, one of the most renowned princes of the later Renaissance, was born on the 8th of July 1528. Charles, after trying in vain to remain neutral in the wars between France and the emperor Charles V., had been forced to side with the latter, whereupon his duchy was overrun with foreign soldiery and became the battlefield of the rival armies. Prince Emmanuel took service with the emperor in 1545 and distinguished himself in Germany, France and the Low Countries. On the death of his father in 1553 he succeeded to the title, little more than an empty one, and continued in the emperor’s service. Having been refused the command of the imperial troops in Piedmont, he tried in vain to negotiate a separate peace with France; but in 1556 France and Spain concluded a five years’ truce, by which each was to retain what it then occupied. This would have been the end of Savoy, but within a year the two powers were again at war. The chief events of the campaign were the successful resistance of Cuneo, held for the duke by Count Luserna, and the victory of St Quentin (1557), won by Emmanuel Philibert himself against the French. At last in 1558 the powers agreed to an armistice, and in 1559 the peace of Cateau-Cambrésis was made, by which Emmanuel regained his duchy, but on onerous terms, for France was to occupy several Piedmontese fortresses, including Turin and Pinerolo, for not more than three years, and a marriage was arranged between the duke and Margaret, duchess of Berry, sister of the French king; while Spain was to garrison Asti and Vercelli (afterwards exchanged for Santhià) until France evacuated the above-mentioned fortresses. The duke’s marriage took place in Paris a few months later; and after the French evacuation he re-entered his dominions amidst the rejoicings of the people. The condition of Piedmont at that time was deplorable; for wars, the exactions and devastations of the foreign soldiery, and religious antagonism between Catholics and Protestants had wrought terrible havoc. “Uncultivated,” wrote the Venetian ambassador, quoted by E. Ricotti, “no citizens in the cities, neither man nor beast in the fields, all the land forest-clad and wild; one sees no houses, for most of them are burnt, and of nearly all the castles only the walls are visible; of the inhabitants, once so numerous, some have died of the plague or of hunger, some by the sword, and some have fled elsewhere preferring to beg their bread abroad rather than support misery at home which is worse than death.” There was no army, the administration was chaotic, and the finances were in a hopeless state. The duke set to work to put his house in order, and inaugurated a series of useful reforms, ably assisted by his minister, Niccolò Balbo. But progress was slow, and was accompanied by measures which abolished the states general, the last survival of feudal liberties. Savoy, following the tendency of the other states of Europe at that time, became thenceforth an absolute monarchy, but without that transformation the achievement of complete independence from foreign powers would have been impossible.
One of the first questions with which he had to deal was the religious difficulty. The inhabitants of the Pellice and Chisone valleys had long professed a primitive form of Christianity which the orthodox regarded as heretical, and had been subject to numerous persecutions in consequence (see [Waldenses]). At the time of the Reformation they had gone over to Protestantism, and during the wars of the 16th century the new religion made great progress in Piedmont. The duke as a devout Catholic desired to purge the state of heresy, and initiated repressive measures against the Waldenses, but after some severe and not very successful fighting he ended by allowing them a measure of religious liberty in those valleys (1561). At the pope’s instigation he recommenced persecution some years later, but his duchess and some German princes pleaded successfully in favour of the Protestants. He next turned his attention to getting rid of the French garrisons; the negotiations proved long and troublesome, but in December 1562 the French departed on payment of 100,000 scudi, retaining only Pinerolo and Savigliano, and Turin became the capital once more. There remained the Bernese, who had occupied some of the duke’s territories in Savoy and Vaud, and in Geneva, over which he claimed certain rights. With Bern he made a compromise, regaining Gex, the Chablais, and the Genevois, on condition that Protestantism should be tolerated there, but he renounced Vaud and some other districts (1566). Disagreements with the Valais were settled in a similar way in 1569; but the Genevans refused to recognize Savoyard suzerainty. Emmanuel reformed the currency, reorganized justice, prepared the way for the emancipation of the serfs, raised the standing army to 25,000 men, and fortified the frontiers, ostensibly against Huguenot raids, but in reality from fear of France. On the death of Charles IX. of France in 1574 the new king, Henry III., passed through Piedmont on his way from Poland; Emmanuel gave him a magnificent reception, and obtained from him a promise that Pinerolo and Savigliano should be evacuated, which was carried out at the end of the year. Philip of Spain was likewise induced to evacuate Asti and Santhià in 1575. Thus, after being more or less under foreign occupation for 39 years, the duchy was at last free. The duke rounded off his dominions by the purchase of Tenda and Oneglia, which increased his seaboard, and the last years of his life were spent in fruitless negotiations to obtain Monferrato, held by the Gonzagas under Spanish protection, and Saluzzo, which was a French fief. He died on the 30th of August 1580, and was succeeded by his son Charles Emmanuel I. As a statesman Emmanuel Philibert was able, business-like and energetic; but he has been criticized for his duplicity, although in this respect he was no worse than most other European princes, whose ends were far more questionable. He was autocratic, but just and very patriotic. During his reign the duchy, which had been more than half French, became predominantly Italian. By diplomacy, which, although he was a capable and brave soldier, he preferred to war, he succeeded in freeing his country, and converting it from a ruined and divided land into a respectable independent power of the second rank, and, after Venice, the best-governed state in Italy.