of antagonism towards Cyril and his creed, and were not pacified until an understanding was reached,in 433 on the basis of a new formula involving some material concessions by him. The union even then met with resistance from a number of bishops, who, rather than accede to it, submitted to deposition and expulsion from their sees; and it was not until these had all died out that, as the result of stringent imperial edicts, Nestorianism may be said to have become extinct throughout the Roman empire. Their school at Edessa was closed by Zeno in 489. As for Nestorius himself, immediately after his deposition he withdrew into private life in his old monastery of Euprepius, Antioch, until 435, when the emperor ordered his banishment to Petra in Arabia. A second decree, it would seem, sent him to Oasis, probably the city of the Great Oasis, in Upper Egypt, where he was still living in 439, at the time when Socrates wrote his Church History. He was taken prisoner by the Blemmyes, a nomad tribe that gave much trouble to the empire in Africa, and when they set him free in the Thebaid near Panopolis (Akhmim) c. 450, they exposed him to further persecution from Schenute the great hero of the Egyptian monks. There is some evidence that he was summoned to the Council of Chalcedon, though he could not attend it, and the concluding portion of his book known as The Bazaar of Heraclides not only gives a full account of the "Robber Synod" of Ephesus 449, but knows that Theodosius is dead (July 450) and seems aware of the proceedings of Chalcedon and the flight of Dioscurus the unscrupulous successor of Cyril at Alexandria. Nestorius was already old and ailing and must have died very soon after.

The Nestorian Heresy.-What is technically and conventionally meant in dogmatic theology by "the Nestorian heresy must now be noticed. As Eutychianism is the doctrine that the God-man has only one nature, so Nestorianism is the doctrine that He has two complete persons. So far as Nestorius himself is concerned, however, it is certain that he never formulated any such doctrine; nor does any recorded utterance of his, however casual, come so near the heresy called by his name as Cyril's deliberately framed third anathema (that regarding the "physical union" of the two hypostases or natures) approaches Eutychianism. It must be remembered that Nestorius was as orthodox at all events as Athanasius on the subject of the incarnation, and sincerely, even fanatically, held every article of the Nicene creed. Hefele himself, one of the most learned and acute of Cyril's partisans, is compelled to admit that Nestorius accurately held the duality of the two natures and the integrity of each, was equally explicitly opposed to Arianism and Apollinarianism, and was perfectly correct in his assertion that the Godhead can neither be born nor suffer; all that he can allege against him is that "the fear of the communicatio idiomatum pursued him like a spectre." But in reality the question raised by Nestorius was not one as to the communicatio idiomatum, but simply as to the proprieties of language. "I cannot speak of God," he said, "as being two or three months old," a remark which was twisted to his disadvantage. He did not refuse to speak of Mary as being the mother of Christ or as being the mother of Emmanuel, but he thought it improper to speak of her as the mother of God, and Leo in the Letter to Flavian which was endorsed at Chalcedon uses the term "Mother of the Lord" which was exactly what Nestorius wished. And there is at least this to be said for him that even the most zealous desire to frustrate the Arian had never made it a part of orthodoxy to speak of David as eoráтwp or of James as ἀδελφόθεος. The secret of the enthusiasm of the masses for the analogous expression Theotokos is to be sought not so much in the Nicene doctrine of the incarnation as in the recent

growth in the popular mind of notions as to the dignity of the Virgin Mary, which were entirely unheard of (except in heretical circles) for nearly three centuries of the Christian era. That the Virgin should be given a title that was quasi-divine mattered little. The danger was that under cover of such a title an unhistorical conception of the facts of the Gospel should grow up, and a false doctrine of the relations between the human and the Divine be encouraged. and this was to Nestorius a double danger that needed to be exposed. He was thus forced into the position of one who brings technical objections against a popular term.

|

Christ lived on earth the life of man, and without questioning the equally genuine Divine element laid stress on this genuine human tended to introduce any innovations in doctrine, and in any estimate consciousness. There is no reason to suppose that Nestorius inof him his strong religious interest and his fervent pastoral spirit must have due weight. He was a great extempore preacher and exposed to the peril of the unconsidered telling" phrase. That a man of such conspicuous ability, who impressed himself at the outset on the people of Constantinople as an uncompromising opponent of heresy should within a few short years be an excommunicated fugitive, sacrificed to save the face of Cyril and the Alexandrians, is indeed, as Duchesne says, a tragedy. No suc Cessor of Chrysostom was likely to receive much good-will from the nephew and successor of Theophilus of Alexandria. It is only within recent years that an attempt has been made to judge Nestorius from some other evidence than that afforded by the accusations of Cyril and the inferences drawn therefrom. This other evidence consists partly of letters from Nestorius, preserved among the works of those to whom they were written, some sermons collected in a Latin translation by Marius Mercator, an African merchant who was doing business in Constantinople at the time of the dispute, and other material gathered from Syriac manuscripts. in 1905 there has also come to our knowledge the most valuable Since the helpful collection of Nestoriana published by Dr F. Loofs evidence of all, Nestorius's own account of the whole difficulty, viz. The Bazaar of Heraclides of Damascus. This pseudonym served to protect the book against the fate that overtook the writings of heretics, and in a Syriac version it was preserved in the Euphrates valley where the followers of Nestorius settled. Ebed Jesu in the 14th century mentions it together with Letters and Homilies, as well as the Tragedy, or a Letters to Cosmas, the Theopaschiles (of which some fragments are still extant) and the Liturgy, which is still used the Apologia of Nestorius, was made public by Dr H. Goussen by the Nestorian Church. The discovery of The Bazaar, which is (though members of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to the Assyrian Christians had previously been acquainted with the book). The text has been edited by P. Paul Bedjan (Leipzig, 1910) and a French translation has been made by M. l'abbé F. Nau. A representative selection of extracts has been given to English readers in J. F. Bethune-Baker's Nestorius and his Teaching (Cambridge, 1908), chapter ii. of which describes the MS. and its accounts. Much of the argument is thrown into the form of a dialogue between (1) Nestorius and an imaginary opponent Superianus, (2) Nestorius and Cyril. The book reveals a strong personality and helps us to know the man and his teaching, even though we have to gather his own views largely from his criticism of his antagonists. He is throughout more concerned for the wrong done to the faith at Ephesus than to himself, saying that if he held the views attributed to him by Cyril he would be the first to condemn himself without mercy. All through the years of conflict he had "but one end in view, that no one should call the Word of God a creature, or the Manhood which was assumed incomplete." In his letters to Celestine he had laid stress on the point that the teaching he attacked was derogatory to the Godhead and so he called its champions Arians. "If the Godhead of the Son had its origin in the womb of the Virgin it was not Godhead as the Father's, and He who was born could not be homoousios with God, and that was what the Arians denied Him to be." It is thus increasingly difficult to believe that Nestorius was a Nestorian." Père J. Mahé has shown (Revue d'Inst. ecclés. July, 1906) that in spite of notable differences of terminology and form the chronologies of Antioch and Alexandria were in essence the same. Personal rather than doctrinal reasons had by far the larger part in determining the fate of Nestorius, who was sacrificed to the agreement between the two great schools.. This view is confirmed by the evidence of the Synodicon Orientale (the collection of the canons of Nestorian Councils and Synods), which shows that the Great Syriac Church built up by the adherents of Nestorius and ever memorable for its zeal in carrying the Gospel into Central Asia, China and India cannot, from its inception, be rightly described as other than orthodox. The "attenuated (i.e. un"Nestorian ") form which some historians have noted in the early centuries of Persian Nestorianism was really there from the beginning. The Nestorian Church, following its leader, formally recognizes the Letter of Leo to Flavian and the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. "When I came," said Nestorius (Baz. Herac.), upon that exposition and read it, I gave thanks to God that the Church of Rome was rightly and blamelessly making confession. even though they happened to be against me personally." His aim. he tells us, had been to maintain the distinct continuance of the two natures of Christ when united through the Incarnation into one Person. "In the Person the natures use their properties mutually.

1 Coptic Life of Dioscurus (Rev. Egyptologique, 1880-1883). J. F. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching, ch. vi.

is the person of the manhood." The ultimate union of these two natures appears to lie in the will-" For there was one and the same will and mind in the union of the natures, so that both should will or not will exactly the same things. The natures have, moreover, a

Syriac, tēgurta, lit. " merchandise." The Greek word may have been propio. Nothing is certainly known of any such Heraclides.

mutual will, since the person of this is the person of that, and the person of that the person of this." The manner in which this union is realized is thus stated by Nestorius: "The. Word also passed through Blessed Mary inasmuch as He did not receive a beginning by birth from her, as is the case with the body which was born of her. For this reason I said that God the Word passed and not was born, because He did not receive a beginning from her. But the two natures being united are onc Christ. And He who was born of the Father as to the Divinity, and from the Holy Virgin as to the humanity is and is styled one; for of the two natures there was a union.' It may truly be said that the ideas for which Nestorius and the Antiochene school strove won the day as regards the doctrinal definitions of the church. The manhood of Christ was safeguarded, as distinct from the Godhead: the union was left an ineffable mystery."

AUTHORITIES. On Nestorius, in addition to the modern literature cited in the article, and the standard histories of dogma (A. Harnack, F. Loofs, R. L. Ottley's Doctrine of the Incarnation, &c.) see R. L. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'église, vol. iii. chs. x. xi. (Paris, Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. ii. § 27 (Leipzig, 1910), 1910). (J. S. 3L.; A. J. G.) NESZLER, VICTOR (1841-1890), German musical composer, was born on the 28th of January 1841 at Baldenheim, near Schlettstadt. At Strassburg he began his university career with the study of theology, but he concluded it with the production of a light opera entitled Fleurette (1864). To complete his knowledge of music Neszler went to Leipzig to study under Hauptmann. His opera Der Trompeter von Säckingen, based on Scheffel's poem, was composed and performed in 1884. Besides a number of other operas, Neszler wrote many songs and choral works; but it is with the Trompeter von Säckingen that his name is associated. He died at Strassburg on the 28th of May 1890. In 1895 a monument to him by Marzolff was erected there. NET, a fabric of thread, cord or wire, the intersections of which are knotted so as to form a mesh. The art of netting is intimately related to weaving, knitting, plaiting and lace-making, from all of which, however, it is distinguished by the knotting of the intersections of the cord. It is one of the most ancient and universal of arts, having been practised among the most primitive tribes, to whom the net is of great importance in hunting and fishing.

Net-making, as a modern industry, is principally concerned with the manufacture of the numerous forms of net used in fisheries, but netting is also largely employed for many other purposes, as for catching birds, for the temporary division of fields, for protecting fruit in gardens, for screens and other furniture purposes, for ladies' hair, bags, appliances used in various games, &c. Since the early part of the 19th century numerous machines have been invented for netting, and several of these have attained commercial success. Fishing nets were formerly made principally from hemp fibre-technically called "twine"; but since the adaptation of machinery to net-making cotton has been increasingly used, such nets being more flexible and lighter, and more easily handled and stowed.

The forms of fishing nets vary according to the manner in which they are intended to act. This is either by entangling the fish in their complicated folds, as in the trammel; receiving them into pockets, as in the trawl; suspending them by the body in the meshes, as in the mackerel-net; imprisoning them within their labyrinth-like chambers, as in the stake-net; or drawing them to shore, as in the seine. The parts of a net are the head or upper margin, along which the corks are strung upon a rope called the head-rope; the foot is the opposite or lower margin, which carries the foot-rope, on which in many cases leaden plummets are made fast. The meshes are the squares composing the net. The width of a net is expressed by the term "over "; e.g. a day-net is three fathoms long and one over or wide. The lever is the first row of a net. There are also accrues, false meshes or quarterings, which are loops inserted in any given row, by which the number of meshes is increased. To bread or ! This is a common Teut. word, of which the origin is unknown; it is not to be connected with "knit " or " knot." The term " net, ie. e. remaining after all deductions, charges, &c., have been made, as in "cet profit," is a variant of neat," tidy, clean, Lat. nitidus, shining

breathe a net is to make a net. Dead netting is a piece without either accrues or stole (stolen) meshes, which last means that a mesh is taken away by netting into two meshes of the preceding row at once.

Hand-Netting.-The tools used in hand-netting are the needle, an instrument for holding and netting the material; it is made with an eye E, a tongue T, and a fork (fig. 1). The twine is wound on it by being passed alternately between the fork and round the tongue, so that the turns of the string lie parallel to the length of the needle, and are kept on by the tongue and fork. A spool or mesh-pin is a piece of round or flat wood on which the loops are formed, the perimeter of the spool determining the size of the loops. Each loop contains two sides of the square mesh; therefore, supposing that it be required to make a mesh 1 in. Large meshes may be formed by giving the twine square that is, measuring 1 in. from knot to knot, -a spool 2 in. in circumference must be used. two or more turns round the spool, as occasion may require; or the spool may be made flat, and of a sufficient width. The method of making the hand-knot in nets known as the fisherman's knot is more easily acquired by example than described in writing. Fig. 2 shows the course of the twine in forming a single knot. From the last-formed knot the twine behind by the little finger of the left hand, forming the loop s, passes over the front of the mesh-pin k, and is caught thence it passes to the front and is caught at d by the left thumb, then through the loops s and m as indicated, after which the twine Fig. 3 is a bend knot used for is released by the thumb and the knot is drawn " " taut uniting two ends of twine. or tight.

Machine-Netting.-In 1778 a netting-machine was patented by William Horton, William Ross, Thomas Davies and John Golby. In 1802 the French government offered a reward of 10,000 francs to the person who should invent an automatic machine for making, Jacquard submitted

a model of a

machine which

h

net

FIG. 1.

FIG. 2.

FIG. 3.

a

b

inventors; especially by Baudouin and Jouannin, patented in the United Kingdom in 1861. In this machine separate threads or cords running longitudinally for 6 each division of the mesh are employed (fig. 4). It will be observed that the alternate threads a and bare differently disposed-the a series being drawn into simple loops over and through which the threads of the b series have to pass. On the machine the a series of threads are arranged vertically, while the b series are placed horizontally in thin lenticular spools. Over the horizontal b series is a range of hooks equal in number with the threads, and set so that they seize the b threads, raise them, and give them a double. twist, thus forming a row of open loops. The loops are then depressed, and, seizing the vertical a threads, draw them crotchet-like through the b loops into loops sufficiently long and open to pass right over the spools containing the b threads (fig. 5), after which it only remains to tighten the threads and the mesh is complete.

a

FIG. 4.

a

Wire-nelling, which is in extensive demand for garden use, poultry coops, and numerous like purposes, is also a twisted structure made principally by machine power. The industry was mainly founded by Charles Barnard in 1844, the first netFIG. 5. ting being made by hand on wooden rollers. The first machine appeared in 1855, and, since that time many devices, generally of extremely complex construction, have come into use. The wire chiefly used is common annealed Bessemer or mild steel (see B. Smith, Wire, Its Manufacture and Uses, New York, 1891).

NETHERLANDS. The geographical features of the countries formerly known collectively as the Netherlands or Low Countries are dealt with under the modern English names of HOLLAND and BELGIUM. Here we are concerned only with their earlier history, which is put for convenience under this heading in order to separate the account of the period when they formed practically a single area for historical purposes from that of the time when Holland and Belgium became distinct administrative units. The sources of our knowledge of the country down to the 8th century are Caesar's De Bello Gallico, iv., the history of Velleius Paterculus, ii. 105, the works of Tacitus, the Historia Early in Francorum (i.-iii.) of Gregory of Tours, the Fredegar's habitants. Chronica (for the last two of which see D. Bouquet's

Recueil de historiens des Gaules et de la France, 17381876). The Netherlands first became known to the Romans through the campaigns of Julius Caesar. He found the country peopled partly by tribes of Gallo-Celtic, partly by tribes of Germanic stock, the river Rhine forming roughly the line of demarcation between the races. Several of the tribes along the borderland, however, were undoubtedly of mixed blood. The Gallo-Celtic tribes bore the general appellation of Belgae, and among these the Nervii, inhabiting the district between the Scheldt and the Sambre were at the date of Caesar's invasion, 57 B.C., the most warlike and important. To the north of the Meuse, and more especially in the low-lying ground enclosed between the Waal and the Rhine (insula Batavorum) lived the Batavi, a clan of the great Germanic tribe, the Chatti. Beyond these were found the Frisians (q.v.), a people of German origin, who gave their name to the territory between the Rhine and the Ems. Of the other tribes the best known are the Caninefates, Chauci, Usipetes, Sicambri, Eburones, Menapii, Morini and Aduatici.

Julius Caesar, after a severe struggle with the Nervii and their confederates, was successful in bringing the Belgic tribes into Their subjection to Rome. Under Augustus, 15 B.C.,, the relations conquered territory was formed into an imperial with the province, Gallia Belgica, and the frontier line, the Romans. Rhine, was strongly held by a series of fortified camps. With regard to the region north of the Rhine we first obtain information from the accounts of the campaigns of Nero, Claudius,

Drusus and Tiberius. The Batavians were first brought under Roman rule in the governorship of Drusus, A.D. 13. They were not incorporated in the empire, but were ranked as allies, socii or auxilia. Their land became a recruiting ground for the Roman armies, and a base for expeditions across the Rhine. The Batavians served with fidelity and distinction in all parts of the empire, and from the days of Augustus onwards formed a considerable part of the Praetorian guard. The Frisians struggled against Roman over-lordship somewhat longer, and it was not until A.D. 47 that they finally submitted to the victorious arms The Frisian auxiliaries were likewise of Domitius Corbulo. regarded as excellent troops.

The revolt

In the confusion of the disputed succession to the imperial throne after the death of Nero, the Batavians (A.D. 69-70) under the influence of a great leader, known only by his Roman name, Claudius Civilis, rose in revolt. Civilis of Civilis. had seen much service in the Roman armies, and was a man of statesmanlike ability. In revenge for his own imprisonment, and the death of his brother by order of Nero, he took advantage of the disorder in the empire not only to stir up his fellow-countrymen to take up arms for independence, but to persuade a large number of German and Belgic tribes to join forces with them. A narrative of the revolt is given in detail by Tacitus. At first success attended Civilis and the Romans were driven out of the greater part of the Belgic province. Even the great fortress of Castra Vetera (Xanten) was starved into submission and the garrison massacred. But dissensions

arose between the German and Celtic elements of Civilis's following. The Romans, under an able general, Cerealis, took advantage of this, and Civilis, beaten in fight, retired to the island of the Batavians. But both sides were exhausted, and it was arranged that Cerealis and Civilis should meet on a broken bridge over the Nabalia (Yssel) to discuss terms of peace. At this point the narrative of Tacitus breaks off, but it would appear that easy conditions were offered, for the Batavians returned to their position of socii, and were henceforth faithful in their steady allegiance to Rome. The insula Batavorum, lined with forts, became for a long period the bulwark of the empire against the inroads of the Germans from the north.

The

Franks.

Of this period scarcely any record remains, but when at the end of the 3rd century the Franks (q.v.) began to swarm over the Rhine into the Roman lands, the names of the old tribes had disappeared. The peoples within the frontier had been transformed into Romanized provincials; outside, the various tribes had become merged in the common appellation of Frisians. The branch of the Frankswho were a confederacy, not a people-which gradually overspread Gallia Belgica, bore the name of the Salian Franks. Nominally they were taken under the protection of the empire, in reality they were its masters and defenders. In the days of their great king Hlodwig or Clovis (481-511) they were in possession of the whole of the southern and central Netherlands. The strip of coast from the mouth of the Scheldt to that of the Ems remained, however, in the hands of the free Frisians (q.v.), in alliance with whom against the Franks were the Saxons (q.v.), who, pressing forward from the east, had occupied a portion of the districts known later as Gelderland, Overyssel and Drente. Saxon was at this period the common title of all the north German tribes; there was but little difference between Frisians and Saxons either in race or language, and they were closely united for some four centuries in common resistance to the encroachments of the Frankish power.

Spread of Christianity.

The conversion of Clovis and his rude followers to Christianity tended gradually to civilize the Franks, and to facilitate the fusion which soon took place between them and the Gallo-Roman population. It tended also to accentuate the enmity to the Franks of the heathen Frisians and Saxons. In the south (of the Netherlands) Christianity was spread by the labours of devoted missionaries, foremost amongst whom were St Amandus, St Bavon and St Eligius, and bishoprics were set up at Cambrai, Tournai, Arras, Thérouanne and Liége. In the north progress was much slower, and