Chapter LXXXVIII: Part 88

"There now [in the third century after Christ] arose another
school, which from its first beginnings announced itself as a
reform and support of the ancient faith, and, consequently, as
an enemy of the new religion. This was the Neoplatonic school
of Alexandria, founded by Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus, and
which was afterwards represented by Porphyrius, Amelius, and
Iamblicus. The doctrine of this school was the last, and in
many respects the best production of paganism, now in its
final struggle; the effort of a society, which acknowledged
its own defects, to regenerate and to purify itself.
Philosophy, and the religion of the vulgar, hitherto separated
and irreconcilable, joined in harmony together for mutual
support, and for a new existence. The Neoplatonics
endeavoured, therefore, to unite the different systems of
philosophy, especially the Pythagorean, Platonic, and
Aristotelean, in one body with the principles of oriental
learning, and thus to raise an edifice of universal, absolute
truth. In the same manner they represented the varied forms of
eastern and western religious worship as one entire whole,
which had manifested itself indeed in different ways, but at
the foundation of which there lay the same true faith. They
taught that 'every kind of homage and adoration, which men
offer to superior beings, is referred to heroes, demons, or
Gods, but, finally, to the one most-high God, the author of
all: that these demons are the chiefs and genii of the
different parts, elements, and powers of the world, of people,
countries, and cities, to obtain whose favour and protection,
it behoved men to honour them according to the rites and
customs of the ancients.'
{2248}
It is, therefore, manifest that these philosophers were
essentially hostile to the Christian religion,—the exclusive
character of which, and tendency to destroy all other
religions, stood in direct contrast with their doctrines: and
as their school was in its vigour at the very time in which
Christianity made its most rapid advances, and had struck
Paganism with a mortal wound, they employed themselves
especially, and more earnestly, than other philosophers, to
maintain their own tenets, and to destroy Christianity. They
in nowise, however, desired to defend heathenism, or its
worship, in their then degenerate and degrading state: their
ideal was a more pure, more noble, spiritualized, polytheism,
to establish which was the object which they had proposed to
themselves. Whilst, therefore, on the one hand, they preserved
the ancient and genuine truths which had sprung from primitive
tradition, and purified them from recent errors and
deformations; on the other, they adopted many of the doctrines
of the hated Christianity, and sought to reform paganism by
the aid of light which had streamed upon them from the
sanctuary of the Church. This admission and employment of
Christian truths are easily explained, if it be true, that two
of their chiefs, Ammonius and Porphyrius, had been Christians.
It is well known that they received instructions from
Christian masters. … This uniformity, or imitation, consists
not only in the use of terms, but in essential dogmas. The
Neoplatonic idea of three hypostases in one Godhead would not
have been heard of, if the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
had not preceded it. … Their doctrines respecting the minor
Gods, their influence and connexion with the supreme Being,
approached near to the Christian dogma of the angels. Nor is
the influence of Christianity less evident in the pure and
grave morality of the Neoplatonics: in their lessons which
teach the purifying of fallen souls, the detachment from the
senses, the crucifying … of the affections and passions, it
is easy to distinguish the Christian, from the commingled
pagan, elements. The Neoplatonics endeavoured to reform
polytheism by giving to men a doctrine more pure concerning
the Gods, by attributing an allegorical sense to the fables,
and a moral signification to the forms and ceremonies of
religion: they sought to raise the souls of men to piety, and
rejected from their mythology many of the degrading narrations
with which it had before abounded. It was their desire also to
abolish the sacrifices, for the Gods could only abhor the
slaughter, the dismemberment and the burning of animals. But
at the same time they reduced to a theory the apparitions of
the Gods; they declared magic to be the most divine of
sciences; they taught and defended theurgy, or the art of
invoking the Gods (those of an inferior order, who were united
to matter), and of compelling them to comply with the desires
of men."

_J. J. I. Döllinger,
History of the Church,
volume 1, pages 70-73._

ALSO IN:
_F. Ueberweg,
History of Philosophy,
sections 66-70 (volume 1)._

_C. Kingsley,
Alexandria and Her Schools._

NEPAUL, OR NIPAL, English war with the Ghorkas of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

NEPHTHALITES, The.

See HUNS, THE WHITE.

NÉRAC, Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

NERESHEIM, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

NERI AND BIANCHI (Blacks and Whites), The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.

NERIUM, Headland of.

The ancient name of Cape Finisterre,

NERO, Roman Emperor, A. D. 54-68.

NERONIA.

Games instituted by Nero, to be conducted in the Greek fashion
and to recur periodically, like the Olympian.

NERVA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 96-98.

NERVII, The.

A tribe in Belgic Gaul, at the time of Cæsar's conquest, which
occupied the country "between the Sambre and the Scheldt
(French and Belgic Hainaut, provinces of Southern Brabant, of
Antwerp, and part of Eastern Flanders). The writers posterior
to Cæsar mention Bagacum (Bavay) as their principal town."

_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2)._

The tribe was destroyed by Cæsar.

See BELGÆ, CÆSAR'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE.

NESSA: Destruction by the Mongols (1220).

See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

The great religious controversy of the Christian world in the
fourth century, relating to the mystery of the Trinity, having
been settled by the triumph of the doctrine of Athanasius over
the doctrine of Arius, it was succeeded in the fifth century
by a still more violent disputation, which concerned the yet
profounder mystery of the Incarnation. To the dogmatists of
one party it was wickedness to distinguish the divine nature
and the human nature which they believed to be united in
Christ; to the dogmatists of the other side it was sin to
confound them. Cyril of Alexandria became the implacable
leader of the first party. Nestorius, Patriarch of
Constantinople, was forced to the front of the battle on the
other side and became its martyr. The opponents of Nestorius
gained advantages in the contest from the then rapidly growing
tendency in the Christian world to pay divine honors to the
Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. To Nestorius and those who
believed with him, this was abhorrent. "Like can but bear
like," said Nestorius in one of his sermons; "a human mother
can only bear a human being. God was not born—he dwelt in
that which was born." But the mob was too easily charmed with
Mariolatry to be moved by reasoning on the subject, and Cyril
led the mob, not only in Alexandria, where it murdered Hypatia
and massacred Jews at his bidding, but generally throughout
the Christian world. A Council called at Ephesus in 431 and
recognized as the third Œcumenical Council, condemned
Nestorius and degraded him from his episcopal throne; but a
minority disputed its procedure and organized a rival Council,
which retorted anathemas and excommunications against Cyril
and his friends. The emperor at last interfered and dissolved
both; but Nestorius, four years later, was exiled to the
Libyan desert and persecuted remorselessly until he died.
Meantime the doctrine of Cyril had been carried to another
stage of development by one of his most ardent supporters, the
Egyptian monk Eutyches, who maintained that the human nature
of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature. Both forms of the
doctrine of one nature in the Son of God seem to have acquired
somewhat confusedly the name of Monophysite, though the latter
tenet is more often called Eutychian, from the name of its
chief promulgator.
{2249}
It kindled new fires in the controversy. In 449, a second
Council at Ephesus, which is called the "Robber Synod" on
account of the peculiar violence and indecency of its
proceedings, sustained the Monophysites. But two years later,
in 451, the vanquished party, supported by Pope Leo the Great,
at Rome, succeeded in assembling a Council at Chalcedon which
laid down a definition of the Christian faith affirming the
existence of two natures in one person, and which nevertheless
condemned Nestorianism and Monophysitism, alike. Their success
only inflamed the passions of the worshippers of the Virgin as
the "Mother of God." "Everywhere monks were at the head of the
religious revolution which threw off the yoke of the Council
of Chalcedon." In Jerusalem "the very scenes of the Saviour's
mercies ran with blood shed in his name by his ferocious
self-called disciples." At Alexandria, a bishop was murdered
in the baptistery of his church. At Constantinople, for sixty
years, there went on a succession of bloody tumults and fierce
revolutionary conspiracies which continually shook the
imperial throne and disorganized every part of society, all
turning upon the theological question of one nature or two in
the incarnate Son of God. The Emperor Zeno "after a vain
attempt to obtain the opinions of the chief ecclesiastical
dignitaries, without assembling a new Council, a measure which
experience had shown to exasperate rather than appease the
strife, Zeno issued his famous Henoticon, or Edict of Union.
… It aimed not at the reconcilement of the conflicting
opinions, but hoped, by avoiding all expressions offensive to
either party, to allow them to meet together in Christian
amity." The Henoticon only multiplied the factions in number
and heated the strife between them. The successor of Zeno,
Anastasius, became a partisan in the fray, and through much of
his reign of twenty-seven years the conflict raged more
fiercely than ever. Constantinople was twice, at least, in
insurrection. "The blue and green factions of the Circus—such
is the language of the times—gave place to these more
maddening conflicts. The hymn of the Angels in Heaven [the
Trisagion] was the battle-cry on earth." At length the death
of Anastasius ended the strife. His successor Justin (A. D.
518), bowed to the authority of the Bishop of Rome—the Pope
Hormisdas—and invoked his aid. The Eastern world, exhausted,
followed generally the emperor's example in taking the
orthodoxy of Rome for the orthodoxy of Christianity.
Nestorianism and Monophysitism in their extreme forms were
driven from the open field in the Christian world, but both
survived and have transmitted their remains to the present day.

_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 2, chapters 3-4,
book 3, chapter 1, and 3._

ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47._

_J. Alzog,
Universal Church History, 2d epoch,
chapter 2._

See, also,
NESTORIANS; JACOBITE CHURCH;
and MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

NESTORIANS, The.

"Within the limits of the Roman empire … this sect was
rapidly extirpated by persecution [see above, NESTORIAN AND
MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY]; and even in the patriarchate of
Antioch, where, as we have seen, the tenets of Nestorius at
first found greatest favour, it had disappeared as early as
the time of Justinian [A. D. 527-565]. But another field lay
open to it in the Persian kingdom of the Sassanidæ, and in
this it ultimately struck its roots deeply. The Chaldæan
church, which at the beginning of the fifth century was in a
flourishing condition, had been founded by missionaries from
Syria; its primate, or Catholicos, was dependent on the
patriarch of Antioch, and in respect of language and
discipline it was closely connected with the Syrian church. It
is not surprising, therefore, to find that some of its members
lent a ready ear to the Nestorian doctrines. This was
especially the case with the church-teachers of the famous
seminary at Edessa in Mesopotamia. … One of their number,
Barsumas, who was bishop of the city of Nisibis from 435 to
489, by his long and active labours contributed most of all to
the establishment of the Nestorian church in Persia. He
persuaded the king Pherozes (Firuz) that the antagonism of his
own sect to the doctrine of the established church of the
Roman empire would prove a safeguard for Persia. … From that
time Nestorianism became the only form of Christianity
tolerated in Persia. … The Catholicos of Chaldæa now threw
off his dependence on Antioch, and assumed the title of
Patriarch of Babylon. The school of Edessa, which in 489 was
again broken up by the Greek emperor, Zeno, was transferred to
Nisibis, and in that place continued for several centuries to
be an important centre of theological learning, and especially
of biblical studies. … In the sixth century the Nestorians
had established churches from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian
Sea, and had preached the Gospel to the Medes, the Bactrians,
the Huns, and the Indians, and as far as the coast of Malabar
and the island of Ceylon. At a later period, starting from
Balk and Samarcand, they spread Christianity among the nomad
Tartar tribes in the remote valleys of the Imaus; and the
inscription of Siganfu, which was discovered in China, and the
genuineness of which is considered to be above suspicion,
describes the fortunes of the Nestorian church in that country
from the first mission, A. D. 636, to the year in which that
monument was set up, A. D. 781. In the ninth century, during
the rule of the caliphs at Bagdad, the patriarch removed to
that city, and at this period twenty-five metropolitans were
subject to him. … From the eleventh century onwards the
prosperity of the Chaldæan church declined, owing to the
terrible persecutions to which its members were exposed.
Foremost among these was the attack of Timour the Tartar, who
almost exterminated them. Within the present century their
diminished numbers have been still further thinned by
frightful massacres inflicted by the Kurds. Their headquarters
now are a remote and rugged valley in the mountains of
Kurdistan, on the banks of the Greater Zab. … Beyond the
boundary which separates Turkey from Persia to the southward
of Mount Ararat, a similar community is settled on the shores
of Lake Urumia. A still larger colony is found at Mosul, and
others … elsewhere in the neighbourhood of the Tigris. …
Of their widely extended missions only one fragment now
remains, in the Christians of St. Thomas on the Malabar coast
of India."

_H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
chapter 5._

ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47._

NETAD, Battle of.

See HUNS: A. D. 453.

{2250}

----------NETHERLANDS: Start--------

NETHERLANDS.
The Land.

"The north-western corner of the vast plain which extends from
the German ocean to the Ural mountains is occupied by the
countries called the Netherlands [Low Countries]. This small
triangle, enclosed between France, Germany, and the sea, is
divided by the modern kingdoms of Belgium and Holland into two
nearly equal portions. … Geographically and
ethnographically, the Low Countries belong both to Gaul and to
Germany. It is even doubtful to which of the two the Batavian
island, which is the core of the whole country, was reckoned
by the Romans. It is, however, most probable that all the
land, with the exception of Friesland, was considered a part
of Gaul. Three great rivers—the Rhine, the Meuse, and the
Scheld—had deposited their slime for ages among the dunes
and sandbanks heaved up by the ocean around their mouths. A
delta was thus formed, habitable at last for man. It was by
nature a wide morass, in which oozy islands and savage forests
were interspersed among lagoons and shallows; a district lying
partly below the level of the ocean at its higher tides,
subject to constant overflow from the rivers, and to frequent
and terrible inundations by the sea. … Here, within a
half-submerged territory, a race of wretched icthyophagi dwelt
upon 'terpen,' or mounds, which they had raised, like beavers,
above the almost fluid soil. Here, at a later day, the same
race chained the tyrant Ocean and his mighty streams into
subserviency, forcing them to fertilize, to render commodious,
to cover with a beneficent network of veins and arteries, and
to bind by watery highways with the farthest ends of the
world, a country disinherited by nature of its rights. A
region, outcast of ocean and earth, wrested at last from both
domains their richest treasures. A race, engaged for
generations in stubborn conflict with the angry elements, was
unconsciously educating itself for its great struggle with the
still more savage despotism of man. The whole territory of the
Netherlands was girt with forests. An extensive belt of
woodland skirted the sea-coast, reaching beyond the mouths of
the Rhine. Along the outer edge of this barrier, the dunes
cast up by the sea were prevented by the close tangle of
thickets from drifting further inward, and thus formed a
breastwork which time and art were to strengthen. The groves
of Haarlem and the Hague are relics of this ancient forest.
The Badahuenna wood, horrid with Druidic sacrifices, extended
along the eastern line of the vanished lake of Flevo. The vast
Hercynian forest, nine days' journey in breadth, closed in the
country on the German side, stretching from the banks of the
Rhine to the remote regions of the Dacians, in such vague
immensity (says the conqueror of the whole country) that no
German, after traveling sixty days, had ever reached, or even
heard of, its commencement. On the south, the famous groves of
Ardennes, haunted by faun and satyr, embowered the country,
and separated it from Celtic Gaul. Thus inundated by mighty
rivers, quaking beneath the level of the ocean, belted about
by hirsute forests, this low land, nether land, hollow land,
or Holland, seemed hardly deserving the arms of the
all-accomplished Roman."

_J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
introduction, section 1._

NETHERLANDS:
The early inhabitants.

See BELGÆ; NERVII; BATAVIANS; and FRISIANS.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 69.
Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

See BATAVIANS.

NETHERLANDS: 4-9th Centuries.
Settlement and domination of the Franks.

See FRANKS; also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 843-870.
Partly embraced in the kingdom of Lotharingia.
The partitioning.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

NETHERLANDS: (Flanders): A. D. 863-1383.
The Flemish towns and counts.

See FLANDERS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 922-1345.
The early Counts of Holland.

"It was in the year 922 that Charles the Simple [of France]
presented to Count Dirk the territory of Holland, by letters
patent. This narrow hook of land, destined, in future ages, to
be the cradle of a considerable empire, stretching through
both hemispheres, was, thenceforth, the inheritance of Dirk's
descendants. Historically, therefore, he is Dirk I., Count of
Holland. … From the time of the first Dirk to the close of
the 13th century there were nearly four hundred years of
unbroken male descent, a long line of Dirks and Florences.
This iron-handed, hot-headed, adventurous race, placed as
sovereign upon its little sandy hook, making ferocious
exertions to swell into large consequence, conquering a mile
or two of morass or barren furze, after harder blows and
bloodier encounters than might have established an empire
under more favorable circumstances, at last dies out. The
countship falls to the house of Avennes, Counts of Hainault.
Holland, together with Zeland, which it had annexed, is thus
joined to the province of Hainault. At the end of another half
century the Hainault line expires. William the Fourth died
childless in 1355 [1345?]."

_J. L. Motley,
Rise of the Dutch Republic,
introduction, sections 5-6._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 13-15th Centuries.
Relations with the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1345-1354.
The Rise of the Hooks and the Kabeljauws, or Cods.

"On the death of William IV. [Count of Holland] without issue
in 1345, his sister, married to the Emperor Louis, became
Countess of Zealand, Holland, Friezland and Hainault. But her
husband dying soon afterwards, many of the noblesse, whom she
had offended by the attempt to restrain their excesses,
instigated her son to assume the sovereignty. In the
sanguinary struggle which ensued, the people generally adhered
to the cause of Margaret." They "looked forward to the
necessities of a female reign as likely to afford them
opportunities to win further immunities, as the condition of
their support against the turbulent nobles. Did not these
live, like the great fish, by devouring the smaller ones? And
how could they be checked but by the hooks which, though
insignificant in appearance, when aptly used would be too
strong for them. Such was the talk of the people; and from
these household words arose the memorable epithets, which in
after years were heard in every civic brawl, and above the din
and death-cry of many a battle-field. Certain of the nobles
adhered to the cause of the Hooks, while some of the cities,
among which were Delft, Haarlem, Dort, and Rotterdam,
supported the Kabeljauws [or Cods].
{2251}
The community was divided into parties rather than into
classes. … In the exasperation of mutual injury, the primary
cause of quarrel was soon forgotten. The Hooks were proud of
the accession of a lord to their ranks; and the Kabeljauws
were equally glad of the valuable aid which a wealthy and
populous town was able to afford. The majority of the
cities,—perhaps the majority of the inhabitants in all of
them,—favoured the Hook party, as the preponderance of the
landowners lay in the opposite scale. But no adherence to
antagonistic principles, or even a systematic profession of
them, is traceable throughout the varying struggle. … In
Friezland the two factions were designated by the
recriminative epithets of 'Vet-Koopers' and
'Schieringers,'—terms hardly translatable. In the conflict
which first marshalled the two parties in hostile array, the
Hooks were utterly defeated;—their leaders who survived were
banished, their property confiscated, and their dwellings
razed to the ground. Margaret was forced to take refuge in
England, where she remained until a short time previous to her
death in 1354, when the four provinces acknowledged William V.
as their undisputed lord. The succeeding reigns are chiefly
characterised by the incessant struggles of the embittered
factions. … Whatever progress was made during the latter
half of the 14th century was municipal and commercial. In a
national view the government was helpless and inefficient,
entangled by ambitious family alliances with France, England,
and Germany, and distracted by the rival powers and
pretensions of domestic factions. Under the administration of
the ill-fated Jacoba [or Jacqueline] these evils reached their
full maturity."

_W. T. McCullagh,
Industrial History of Free Nations,
chapter 9 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: 14-15th Centuries.
Commercial and industrial superiority.
Advance in learning and art.

"What a scene as compared with the rest of Northern Europe,
and especially with England … must have been presented by
the Low Countries during the 14th century! In 1370, there are
3,200 woollen-factories at Malines and on its territory. One
of its merchants carries on an immense trade with Damascus and
Alexandria. Another, of Valenciennes, being at Paris during a
fair, buys up an the provisions exposed for sale in order to
display his wealth. Ghent, in 1340, contains 40,000 weavers.
In 1389, it has 189,000 men bearing arms; the drapers alone
furnish 18,000 in a revolt. In 1380, the goldsmiths of Bruges
are numerous enough to form in war time an entire division of
the army. At a repast given by one of the Counts of Flanders
to the Flemish magistrates, the seats provided for the guests
being unfurnished with cushions, they quietly folded up their
sumptuous cloaks, richly embroidered and trimmed with fur, and
placed them on the wooden benches. When leaving the table at
the conclusion of the feast, a courtier called their attention
to the fact that they were going without their cloaks. The
burgomaster of Bruges replied: 'We Flemings are not in the
habit of carrying away the cushions after dinner.' …
Commines, the French chronicler, writing in the 15th century,
says that the traveller, leaving France and crossing the
frontiers of Flanders, compared himself to the Israelites when
they had quitted the desert and entered the borders of the
Promised Land. Philip the Good kept up a court which surpassed
every other in Europe for luxury and magnificence. … In all
such matters of luxury and display, England of the 16th or
17th century had nothing to compare with the Netherlands a
hundred or even two hundred years before. After luxury, come
comfort, intelligence, morality, and learning, which develop
under very different conditions. In the course of time even
Italy was outstripped in the commercial race. The conquest of
Egypt by the Turks, and the discovery of a water passage to
the Indies, broke up the overland trade with the East, and
destroyed the Italian and German cities which had flourished
on it. … Passing from the dominion of the House of Burgundy
to that of the House of Austria, which also numbered Spain
among its vast possessions, proved to them in the end an event
fraught with momentous evil. Still for a time, and from a mere
material point of view it was an evil not unmixed with good.
The Netherlanders were better sailors and keener merchants
than the Spaniards, and, being under the same rulers, gained
substantial advantages from the close connection. The new
commerce of Portugal also filled their coffers; so that while
Italy and Germany were impoverished, they became wealthier and
more prosperous than ever. … With wealth pouring in from all
quarters, art naturally followed in the wake of commerce.
Architecture was first developed, and nowhere was its
cultivation more general than in the Netherlands."

_D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, &c.,
volume 1, chapter 1._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland and Hainault): A. D. 1417-1430.
The despoiling of Countess Jaqueline.

In 1417, Count William VI. of Holland, Hainault and Friesland,
died, leaving no male heirs, but a daughter, Jacoba, or
Jaqueline, whom most of the nobles and towns of the several
states had already acknowledged as the heiress of her father's
sovereignty. Though barely seventeen years of age, the
countess Jake, as she was sometimes called, wore a widow's
weeds. She had been married two years before to John, the
second son of the king of France, who became presently
thereafter, by his brother's death, the dauphin of France.
John had died, a few months before Count William's death, and
the young countess, fair in person and well endowed in mind,
was left with no male support, to contend with the rapacity of
an unscrupulous bishop-uncle (John, called The Godless, Bishop
of Liege), who strove to rob her of her heritage. "Henry V.
[of England] had then stood her friend, brought about a
reconciliation, established her rights and proposed a marriage
between her and his brother John, Duke of Bedford, who was
then a fine young man of five or six and twenty. … But she
was a high-spirited, wilful damsel, and preferred her first
cousin, the Duke of Brabant, whose father was a brother of
Jean Sans Peur [Duke of Burgundy]. … The young Duke was only
sixteen, and was a weak-minded, passionate youth. Sharp
quarrels took place between the young pair; the Duchess was
violent and headstrong, and accused her husband of allowing
himself to be governed by favourites of low degree. The Duke
of Burgundy interfered in vain. … After three years of
quarrelling, in the July of 1421 Jaqueline rode out early one
morning, met a knight of Hainault called Escaillon, 'who had
long been an Englishman at heart,' and who brought her sixty
horsemen, and galloped off for Calais, whence she came to
England, where Henry received her with the courtesy due to a
distressed dame-errant, and she became a most intimate
companion of the Queen. …
{2252}
She loudly gave out that she intended to obtain a separation
from her husband on the plea of consanguinity, although a
dispensation had been granted by the Council of Constance, and
'that she would marry some one who would pay her the respect
due to her rank.' This person soon presented himself in the
shape of Humfrey, duke of Gloucester, the King's youngest
brother, handsome, graceful, accomplished, but far less
patient and conscientious than any of his three elders."
Benedict XIII., the anti-pope, was persuaded to pronounce the
marriage of Jaqueline and John of Brabant null and void; "but
Henry V. knew that this was a vain sentence, and intimated to
his brother that he would never consent to his espousing the
Duchess of Brabant; showing him that the wedlock could not be
legal, and that to claim the lady's inheritance would lead to
a certain rupture with the Duke of Burgundy, who could not but
uphold the cause of his cousin of Brabant." Notwithstanding
these remonstrances, the Duke Humfrey did marry the seductive
Jaqueline, early in 1424. "He then sent to demand from the
Duke of Brabant the possession of the lady's inheritance; and
on his refusal the Hainaulters espoused whichever party they
preferred and began a warfare among themselves." Soon
afterwards the godless bishop of Liege died and "bequeathed
the rights he pretended to have to Hainault, not to his niece,
but to the Duke of Burgundy. Gloucester in the meantime
invaded Hainault and carried on a 'bitter war there.' Burgundy
assembled men-at-arms for its protection; and letters passed
between the Dukes, ending in a challenge—not between
Jaqueline's two husbands, who would have seemed the fittest
persons to have fought out the quarrel, but between Gloucester
and Burgundy." It was arranged that the question of the
possession of Hainault should be decided by single combat.
Humfrey returned to England to make preparations, leaving
Jaqueline at Mons, with her mother. The latter proved false
and allowed the citizens of Mons to deliver up the unhappy
lady to Philip of Burgundy. Her English husband found himself
powerless to render her much aid, and was possibly indifferent
to her fate, since another woman had caught his fancy.
Jaqueline, after a time, escaped from her captivity, and
revived the war in Hainault, Gloucester sending her 500 men.
"The Duke of Brabant died, and reports reached her that
Gloucester had married Eleanor Cobham; but she continued to
battle for her county till 1428, when she finally came to
terms with Philippe [of Burgundy], let him garrison her
fortresses, appointed him her heir, and promised not to marry
without his consent. A year or two after, however, she married
a gentleman of Holland called Frank of Burslem, upon which he
was seized by the Burgundians. To purchase his liberty she
yielded all her dominions, and only received an annual pension
until 1436, when she died, having brought about as much strife
and dissension as any woman of her time."

_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos of English History,
series 2, chapter 33._

ALSO IN:
_E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles
(translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapters 164, 181, 234>,
book 2, chapters 22-32, 48-49._

_C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 1, chapters 5-6._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.
The sovereignty of the House of Burgundy established.

"Upon the surrender of Holland, Zealand, Friezland, and
Hainault by Jacoba, Philip [the duke of Burgundy called Philip
the Good] became possessed of the most considerable states of
the Netherlands. John, duke of Burgundy, his father, had
succeeded to Flanders and Artois, in right of his mother
Margaret, sole heiress of Louis van der Male, count of
Flanders. In the year 1429, Philip entered into possession of
the county of Namur, by the death of Theodore, its last native
prince, without issue, of whom he had purchased it during his
lifetime for 132,000 crowns of gold. To Namur was added in the
next year the neighbouring duchy of Brabant, by the death [A.
D. 1430] of Philip (brother of John, who married Jacoba of
Holland), without issue; although Margaret, countess-dowager
of Holland, aunt of the late duke, stood the next in
succession, since the right extended to females, Philip
prevailed with the states of Brabant to confer on him, as the
true heir, that duchy and Limburg, to which the Margraviate of
Antwerp and the lordship of Mechlin were annexed. … The
accession of a powerful and ambitious prince to the government
of the county was anything but a source of advantage to the
Dutch, excepting, perhaps, in a commercial point of view."

_C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1451-1453.
Revolt of Ghent.

See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1456.
The Burgundian hand laid on Utrecht.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1456.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1473.
Guelderland taken into the Burgundian dominion.

See GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
The severance from Burgundy.
Accession of the Duchess Mary.
The grant of the "Great Privilege."

On the fifth of January, 1477, Charles the Bold of Burgundy
came to his end at Nancy, and Louis XI. of France laid prompt
and sure hands on the Burgundian duchy, which remained
thenceforth united to the French crown. It was the further
intention of Louis to secure more or less of the Netherland
domain of the late duke, and he began seizures to that end.
But the Netherland states much preferred to acknowledge the
sovereignty of the young duchess Mary, daughter and sole
heiress of Charles the Bold, provided she would make proper
terms with them. "Shortly after her accession, the nobles, to
whose guardianship she had been committed by Charles before
his departure, summoned a general assembly of the states of
the Netherlands at Ghent, to devise means for arresting the
enterprises of Louis, and for raising funds to support the war
with France, as well as to consider the state of affairs in
the provinces. … This is the first regular assembly of the
states-general of the Netherlands. … Charles, and his
father, Philip, had exercised in the Netherlands a species of
government far more arbitrary than the inhabitants had until
then been accustomed to. … It now appeared that a favourable
opportunity offered itself for rectifying these abuses; and
the assembly, therefore, made the consideration of them a
preliminary to the grant of any supplies for the war. … They
insisted so firmly on this resolution that Mary, finding they
were determined to refuse any subsidies till their grievances
were redressed, consented to grant charters of privileges to
all the states of the Netherlands. That of Holland and Zealand
[was] commonly called the Great Charter."

_C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1), with foot-note._

{2253}

"The result of the deliberations [of the assembly of the
states, in 1477] is the formal grant by Duchess Mary of the
'Groot Privilegie,' or Great Privilege, the Magna Charta of
Holland. Although this instrument was afterwards violated, and
indeed abolished, it became the foundation of the republic. It
was a recapitulation and recognition of ancient rights, not an
acquisition of new privileges. It was a restoration, not a
revolution. Its principal points deserve attention from those
interested in the political progress of mankind. 'The duchess
shall not marry without consent of the estates of her
provinces. All offices in her gift shall be conferred on
natives only. No man shall fill two offices. No office shall
be farmed. The Great Council and Supreme Court of Holland is
re-established. Causes shall be brought before it on appeal
from the ordinary courts. It shall have no original
jurisdiction of matters within the cognizance of the
provincial and municipal tribunals. The estates and cities are
guaranteed in their right not to be summoned to justice beyond
the limits of their territory. The cities, in common with all
the provinces of the Netherlands, may hold diets as often and
at such places as they choose. No new taxes shall be imposed
but by consent of the provincial estates. Neither the duchess
nor her descendants shall begin either an offensive or
defensive war without consent of the estates. In case a war be
illegally undertaken, the estates are not bound to contribute
to its maintenance. In all public and legal documents, the
Netherland language shall be employed. The commands of the
duchess shall be invalid, if conflicting with the privileges
of a city. The seat of the Supreme Council is transferred from
Mechlin to the Hague. No money shall be coined, nor its value
raised or lowered, but by consent of the estates. Cities are
not to be compelled to contribute to requests which they have
not voted. The Sovereign shall come in person before the
estates, to make his request for supplies.' … Certainly, for
the fifteenth century, the 'Great Privilege' was a reasonably
liberal constitution. Where else upon earth, at that day, was
there half so much liberty as was thus guaranteed?"

_J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
introduction, section 8._

ALSO IN:
_L. S. Costello,
Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
chapters 28-30._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
The Austrian marriage of Mary of Burgundy.

"Several husbands were proposed to the Princess of Burgundy,
and every one was of opinion there was a necessity of her
marrying, to defend those territories that she had left to
her, or (by marrying the dauphin), to recover what she had
lost.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.

Several were entirely for this match, and she was as earnest
for it as anybody, before the letters she had sent by the Lord
of Humbercourt and the chancellor to the king [Louis XI.] were
betrayed to the ambassadors from Ghent. Some opposed the
match, and urged the disproportion of their age, the dauphin
being but nine years old, and besides engaged to the King of
England's daughter; and these suggested the son of the Duke of
Cleves. Others recommended Maximilian, the emperor's son, who
is at present King of the Romans." Duchess Mary made choice
presently of Maximilian, then Archduke of Austria, afterwards
King of the Romans and finally emperor. The husband-elect
"came to Cologne, where several of the princess's servants
went to meet him, and carry him money, with which, as I have
been told, he was but very slenderly furnished; for his father
was the stingiest and most covetous prince, or person, of his
time. The Duke of Austria was conducted to Ghent, with about
700 or 800 horse in his retinue, and this marriage was
consummated [August 18, 1477], which at first sight brought no
great advantage to the subjects of the young princess; for,
instead of his supporting her, she was forced to supply him
with money. His armies were neither strong enough nor in a
condition to face the king's; besides which, the humour of the
house of Austria was not pleasing to the subjects of the house
of Burgundy, who had been bred up under wealthy princes, that
had lucrative offices and employments to dispose of; whose
palaces were sumptuous, whose tables were nobly served, whose
dress was magnificent, and whose liveries were pompous and
splendid. But the Germans are of quite a contrary temper;
boorish in their manners and rude in their way of living."

_Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 6, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_L. S. Costello,
Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
chapter 31._

See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
Maximilian and the Flemings.
The end of the Hook party in Holland.

"According to the terms of the marriage treaty between
Maximilian and Mary, their eldest son, Philip, succeeded to
the sovereignty of the Netherlands immediately upon the death
of his mother [March 26, 1482]. As he was at this time only
four years of age, Maximilian obtained the acknowledgment of
himself as guardian of the young count's person, and protector
of his states, by all the provinces except Flanders and
Guelderland. The Flemings having secured the person of Philip
at Ghent, appointed a regency." To reduce the Flemings to
obedience, Maximilian carried on two campaigns in their
country, during 1484 and 1485, as the result of which Ghent
and Bruges surrendered. "Maximilian was acknowledged protector
of Flanders during the minority of Philip, who was delivered
by the Ghenters into the hands of his father, and by him
entrusted to the care of Margaret of York, Duchess-dowager of
Burgundy, until he became of age." Three years later
(1488)—Maximilian having been, in the meantime, crowned "King
of the Romans," at Aix la Chapelle, and thus cadetted, so to
speak, for his subsequent coronation as emperor—the Flemings
rose again in revolt, Maximilian was at Bruges, and rumor
accused him of a design to occupy the city with German troops.
The men of Bruges forestalled the attempt by seizing him
personally and making him a prisoner. They kept him in durance
for nearly four months, until he had signed a treaty, agreeing
to surrender the government of the Netherlands to the young
Duke Philip, his son; to place the latter under the care of
the princes of the blood (his relatives on the Burgundian
side); to withdraw all foreign troops, and to use his
endeavors to preserve peace with France.
{2254}
On these terms Maximilian obtained his liberty; but, meantime,
his father, the Emperor Frederic, had marched an army to the
frontiers of Brabant for his deliverance, and the very
honorable King of the Romans, making haste to the shelter of
these forces, repudiated with alacrity all the engagements he
had sworn to. His imperial father led the army he had brought
into Flanders and laid siege to Ghent; but tired of the
undertaking after six weeks and returned to Germany, leaving
his forces to prosecute the siege and the war. The commotions
in Flanders now brought to life the popular party of the
"Hooks" in Holland, and war broke out in that province. In
neither part of the Netherlands were the insurgents
successful. The Flemings had been helped by France, and when
the French king abandoned them they were forced to buy a peace
on humiliating terms and for a heavy price in cash. In
Holland, the revolt languished for a time, but broke out with
fresh spirit in 1490, excited by an edict which summarily
altered the value of the coin. In the next year it took the
name of the "Casembrotspel," or Bread and Cheese War. This
insurrection was suppressed in 1492, with the help of German
troops, and proved only disastrous to the province. "It was
the last effort made for a considerable time by the Hollanders
against the increasing power and extortion of their counts.
… The miserable remnant of the Hook or popular party melted
so entirely away that we hear of them no more in Holland: the
county, formerly a power respected in itself, was now become a
small and despised portion of an overgrown state." In 1494,
Philip having reached the age of seventeen, and Maximilian
having become emperor by the death of his father, the latter
surrendered and the former was installed in the government of
the Netherlands.

_C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.
Beginning of the Austro-Spanish tyranny.
Absorption in the vast dominion of Charles V.
The seventeen Provinces, their independent constitutions and
their States-General.

"In 1494, Philip, now 17 years of age, became sovereign of the
Netherlands. But he would only swear to maintain the
privileges granted by his grandfather and great-grandfather,
Charles and Philip, and refused to acquiesce in the Great
Privilege of his mother. The Estates acquiesced. For a time,
Friesland, the outlying province of Holland, was severed from
it. It was free, and it chose as its elective sovereign the
Duke of Saxony. After a time he sold his sovereignty to the
House of Hapsburg. The dissensions of the Estates had put them
at the mercy of an autocratic family. Philip of Burgundy, in
1496, married Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. In
1500 his son Charles was born, who was afterwards Charles V.,
Duke of the Netherlands, but also King of Spain, Emperor of
Germany, King of Jerusalem, and, by the grant of Alexander
VI., alias Roderic Borgia and Pope, lord of the whole new
world. Joanna, his mother, through whom he had this vast
inheritance, went mad, and remained mad during her life and
his.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

Charles not only inherited his mother's and father's
sovereignties, but his grandfather's also.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526].

… The peril which the liberties of the Netherlands were now
running was greater than ever. They had been drawn into the
hands of that dynasty which, beginning with two little Spanish
kingdoms [Castile and Aragon], had in a generation developed
into the mightiest of monarchies. … Charles succeeded his
father Philip as Count of Flanders in 1506. His father, Philip
the Handsome, was at Burgos in Castile, where he was attacked
by fever, and died when only 28 years of age. Ten years
afterwards Charles became King of Spain (1516). When he was 19
years of age (1519) he was elected emperor.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

The three nations over whom he was destined to rule hated each
other cordially. There was antipathy from the beginning
between Flemings and Spaniards. The Netherlands nobles were
detested in Spain, the Spaniards in the Low Countries were
equally abhorred. … Charles was born in Flanders, and during
his whole career was much more a Fleming than a Spaniard. This
did not, however, prevent him from considering his Flemish
subjects as mainly destined to supply his wants, and submit to
his exactions. He was always hard pressed for money. The
Germans were poor and turbulent. The conquest and subjection
of the Moorish population in Spain had seriously injured the
industrial wealth of that country. But the Flemings were
increasing in riches, particularly the inhabitants of Ghent.
They had to supply the funds which Charles required in order
to carry out the operations which his necessities or his
policy rendered urgent. He had been taught, and he readily
believed, that his subjects' money was his own. Now just as
Charles had come to the empire, two circumstances had occurred
which have had a lasting influence over the affairs of Western
Europe. The first of these was the conquest of Egypt by the
Turks under Selim I (1512-20). … Egypt had for nearly two
centuries been the only route by which Eastern produce, so
much valued by European nations, could reach the consumer. …
Now this trade, trifling to be sure to our present experience,
was of the highest importance to the trading towns of Italy,
the Rhine, and the Netherlands. … But the Netherlands had
two industries which saved them from the losses which affected
the Germans and Italians. They were still the weavers of the
world. They still had the most successful fisheries. … The
other cause was the revolt against the papacy" [the
Reformation—see PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, and after].

_J. E. T. Rogers,
The Story of Holland,
chapters 5-6._

The seventeen provinces comprehended under the name of the
Netherlands, as ruled by Charles V., were the four duchies of
Brabant, Limburg, Luxemburg, and Guelderland; the seven
counties of Artois, Hainault, Flanders, Namur, Zutphen,
Holland, and Zealand; the five seigniories or lordships of
Friesland, Mechlin, Utrecht, Overyssel, and Groningen; and the
margraviate of Antwerp. "Of these provinces, the four which
adjoined the French border, and in which a French dialect was
spoken, were called Walloon [see WALLOONS]; in the other
provinces a dialect, more or less resembling German,
prevailed, that of the midland ones being Flemish, that of the
northern, Dutch. They differed still more in their laws and
customs than in language. Each province was an independent
state, having its own constitution, which secured more liberty
to those who lived under it than was then commonly enjoyed in
most other parts of Europe. …
{2255}
The only institutions which supplied any links of union among
the different provinces were the States-General, or assembly
of deputies sent from each, and the Supreme Tribunal
established at Mechlin, having an appellate jurisdiction over
them all. The States-General, however, had no legislative
authority, nor power to impose taxes, and were but rarely
convened. … The members of the States-General were not
representatives chosen by the people, but deputies, or
ambassadors, from certain provinces. The different provinces
had also their own States."

_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, pages 221-222._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1512.
Burgundian provinces included in the Circle of Burgundy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.
The Reformation in the Provinces.
The "Placards" and Persecutions of Charles V.
The Edict of 1550.
The Planting of the Inquisition.

"The people of the Netherlands were noted not less for their
ingenuity shown in the invention of machines and implements,
and for their proficiency in science and letters, than for
their opulence and enterprise. It was their boast that common
laborers, even the fishermen who dwelt in the huts of
Friesland, could read and write, and discuss the
interpretation of Scripture. … In such a population, among
the countrymen of Erasmus, where, too, in previous ages,
various forms of innovation and dissent had arisen, the
doctrines of Luther must inevitably find an entrance. They
were brought in by foreign merchants, 'together with whose
commodities,' writes the old Jesuit historian Strada, 'this
plague often sails.' They were introduced with the German and
Swiss soldiers, whom Charles V. had occasion to bring into the
country. Protestantism was also transplanted from England by
numerous exiles who fled from the persecution of Mary. The
contiguity of the country to Germany and France provided
abundant avenues for the incoming of the new opinions. 'Nor
did the Rhine from Germany, or the Meuse from France,' to
quote the regretful language of Strada, 'send more water into
the Low Countries, than by the one the contagion of Luther, by
the other of Calvin, was imported into the same Belgic
provinces.' The spirit and occupations of the people, the
whole atmosphere of the country, were singularly propitious
for the spread of the Protestant movement. The cities of
Flanders and Brabant, especially Antwerp, very early furnished
professors of the new faith. Charles V. issued, in 1521, from
Worms, an edict, the first of a series of barbarous enactments
or 'Placards,' for the extinguishing of heresy in the
Netherlands; and it did not remain a dead letter. In 1523, two
Augustinian monks were burned at the stake in Brussels. …
The edicts against heresy were imperfectly executed. The
Regent, Margaret of Savoy, was lukewarm in the business of
persecution; and her successor, Maria, the Emperor's sister,
the widowed Queen of Hungary, was still more leniently
disposed. The Protestants rapidly increased in number.
Calvinism, from the influence of France, and of Geneva, where
young men were sent to be educated, came to prevail among
them. Anabaptists and other licentious or fanatical sectaries,
such as appeared elsewhere in the wake of the Reformation,
were numerous; and their excesses afforded a plausible pretext
for violent measures of repression against all who departed
from the old faith. In 1550, Charles V. issued a new Placard,
in which the former persecuting edicts were confirmed, and in
which a reference was made to Inquisitors of the faith, as
well as to the ordinary judges of the bishops. This excited
great alarm, since the Inquisition was an object of extreme
aversion and dread. The foreign merchants prepared to leave
Antwerp, prices fell, trade was to a great extent suspended;
and such was the disaffection excited, that the Regent Maria
interceded for some modification of the obnoxious decree.
Verbal changes were made, but the fears of the people were not
quieted; and it was published at Antwerp in connection with a
protest of the magistrates in behalf of the liberties which
were put in peril by a tribunal of the character threatened.
'And,' says the learned Arminian historian, 'as this affair of
the Inquisition and the oppression from Spain prevailed more
and more, all men began to be convinced that they were
destined to perpetual slavery.' Although there was much
persecution in the Netherlands during the long reign of
Charles, yet the number of martyrs could not have been so
great as 50,000, the number mentioned by one writer, much less
100,000, the number given by Grotius."

_G. P. Fisher,
The Reformation,
chapter 9._