Главная > Документ



I. The First Council, 325 A.D. Character, Membership, and Problems U 1). The Procedure ($ 2). The Symbol ($ 3). Other Problems (5 4).

II. The Second Council, 787 A.D.

I. The First Council, 325 A.D.* The first Coun­cil of Nice is conspicuous as the starting point for the great doctrinal controversies of the Church in the fourth and fifth centuries. Here a union be­tween the ecclesiastical potency of the councils and the State was effected, vesting the deliberations of this body with imperial power. Earlier synods had been contented with protection against :. Charac‑ heretical doctrines; but the Council

ter, Mem‑ of Nice is characterized by the further bership, and step from a defensive position to posi‑

Problems. tive decisions and minutely elaborated

articles of faith. In the Arian con­

troversy lay a great obstacle to the realization of

Constantine's idea of a universal empire which was

to be attained by aid of uniformity of divine worship.

Accordingly for the summer of 325 the bishops of

all provinces were summoned to the first ecumenical

council at Nice in Bithynia, a place easily accessible

to the majority of the bishops, especially those of

Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

The number of members can not be accurately

stated; Athanasius counted 318, Eusebius only 250.

As a matter of course, the oriental bishops formed the

preponderating number; the first rank being held

by the three archbishops Alexander of Alexandria,

Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem,

and by Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesar

rea. A special prominence attached to this council

also because the persecutions had just ended, and

it was to be assumed that nearly all of the assembled

fathers had stood forth as witnesses of the faith.

The occident sent not more than five representa­

tives in equal distribution from the provinces,

Marcus of Calabria from Italy, Cecilian of Carthage

from Africa, Hosius of Cordova from Spain, Nicasius

of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from

the province of the Danube. These ecclesiastical

dignitaries of course did not travel alone, but each

one with his suite, so that Eusebius speaks of an

almost innumerable host of accompanying priests,

deacons, and acolytes. Among the assistants it

was Athanasius, a young deacon and companion of

Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who distinguished

himself as the " most vigorous fighter against the

Arians," and similarly Alexander of Constantinople,

a presbyter, as representative of his aged bishop.

The points to be discussed at the synod were: (1)

The Arian question, (2) the celebration of Easter,

(3) the Meletian schism, (4) the baptism of heretics,

and (5) the status of the lapsed in the persecution

under Licinius.

The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, busying itself chiefly with preparatory discussions on the Arian question, in which Arius, with some adherents, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, and Maris of Chalcedon, seems to have been the leading spirit; regular sessions, however, began

only on the arrival of the emperor. After Pre­scribing the course of the negotiations he entrusted the mode of procedure to a committee

a. The appointed by himself, consisting in all

Procedure. probability of the most prominent

participants of that body. It is un­

doubtedly chiefly owing to this step on the part of

Constantine that the council, after being in session

for an entire month, promulgated on June 19 the


At first the Arians and the orthodox showed an un­

compromising front toward each other. The Arians

entrusted the representation of their interests to

Eusebius of Cfesarea (q.v.), whose scholarship and

flowery speech made a great impression upon the

emperor. His reading of the confession of the Arians

called forth a storm of resentment among the oppo­

nenta; two minorities vividly interested in contrary

opinions opposed each other, but between them

yawned indifference. In their behalf, as well as for

his own sake, Eusebius, after he had ceased to rep­

resent the Ariaas, appeared as a mediator; and in

asserting that the chief aim to be pursued should be

the establishment of the peace of the Church, he

at the same time agreed with his exalted protector.

He presented a new formula, the baptismal symbol

of his own congregation at Cwsarea, by means of

which the differing opinions might be reconciled.

The emperor, who pursued the purely political in­

tentions of a successful pacification, could desire

no more welcome proposition and immediately con­

firmed it by making it his own. in this way he

did not overpower the majority, but most probably

met its wishes; for if the orthodox had really been

able to count on a preponderating majority, even

the predilection of the emperor would not have

hindered them from setting up their own confession

in the manner of that proposed by Bishop Alexander

in his first circular letter. But far from daring

such an attempt, the majority (without resistance)

complied, asserting their rights only in the form of

amending clauses. While such modes of procedure

are more characteristic of minorities than of major­

ities, their use by the latter does not necessarily

debar victory, as indeed in this case it did not.

All propositions of the orthodox during the re­

mainder of the controversy having been accepted,

it is furthermore evident, first: that the Arians of

conviction were in the minority; second: that the

majority (or deciding body) did not possess, and

hence did not assert, convictions of a dogmatic na­

ture. These are, considered in a general way, the

presuppositions of the world‑important decisions of

the Council of Nice.

Examining the symbol in detail, it appears that it contained indeed decisions on the Son of God which might satisfy all members of the council. Even Arius found no reason to oppose it from his standpoint. But for the partisans of

3. The Bishop Alexander the definitions were

Symbol too vague; they rendered them more

concise, and if the Nicene Creed be

compared with its model, that of Cwsarea, it seems

to have originated in some omissions from the second

article which was the only one in question. To

these omissions corresponded three no less impor‑


tant additions: (1) to designate the Son "that is, of the essence of the Father" was added; (2) another addition reads " begotten, not made "; (3) the most important addition reads " of one substance with the Father." Of the third article only the words " and in the Holy Ghost " were left and then fol­lowed immediately the anathemas. Thus the neu­tral baptismal confession of the congregation of Caesarea, laid before the council by Eusebius, became the uncompromising anti‑Arian symbol of Nice, the text of which is preserved in a letter of Eusebius to his congregation, in Athanasius, and elsewhere. The symbol was finally accepted, although the anti­Arians or Homoousians were in the minority. The emperor was intent upon a decisive settlement of the question; at first he probably had no predilec­tion for either of the conceptions of the two con­tending parties, but perceiving that the original propositions of Eusebius, which supposedly fur­thered peace, effected the very opposite, he may involuntarily have considered whether he could not reach his aim more quickly by seeking an agreement with the anti‑Arians. Undoubtedly there were not wanting attempts at personal mediation, in the first place on the part of Bishop Hosius of Cordova (q.v.), one of the most decided Homoousians, and at the time of the council the confidant of the emperor in all affairs of the Church. He stands at the head of the lists of participants, and Athanasius ascribes to him the actual success of the symbol. But when it is considered that great men like Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Mareellus of Ancyra belonged to the anti‑Arian party, it does not seem strange that the Homoou­sians, in spite of being in the minority, gained the final victory. Eusebius of Ciesarea, in spite of his sympathies for Arius, accepted the decisions of the council, subscribing even the condemnatory clauses against Arius. The number of persons of promi­nence among the opponents was not so considerable; for after the debates, extending over four weeks, there were only two adherents of Arius who remained steadfast, Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Se­cundus of Ptolemais; of the three others upon whom Arius might have counted, Maria of Chalcedon finally subscribed the whole symbol, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice at least its positive part, without the condemnatory clauses against Arius. The emperor now actually fulfilled his threat, according to which everybody who refused to sign had to face exile. Arius, Theonas, Secundus, Euse­bius of Nicomedia, and Theognis were excommuni­cated. The works of Arius were confiscated in order to be burnt. But it soon appeared that even force could not silence the disputes, and that under the pressure of such procedure the controversy on the equality of Christ with God assumed un­thought‑of dimensions; for the Council of Nice had done away with the indifference of the masses to theological distinctions.

After the settlement, on June 19, of the most im­portant subject of discussion, the question of Easter was brought up. According to Duehesne (Revue des questions historiques, xxviii. 37), who founds his con­clusions (1), on the conciliar letter to the Alexan­drians preserved in Theodoret, Hist. ecd., I., ix. 12;

Socrates, Hiet. eccl., I., ix. 12; (2), on the circular letter of Constantine to the bishops after the council, Eusebius, Mite Constantine, III., xviii. 19; Theodo­ret, Hist. eccl., I., x. 3 aqq.; (3), on Athanasius, De Synodo, v.; Epiat. ad Afros, ii.; the

4. Other oriental churches of Syria, Cilicia, and

Problems. Mesopotamia adhered to the Jewish

reckoning of the fourteenth of Nisan,

instead of basing the calculation for Easter on the

equinoctial occurrence after the model of Alexandria

and Rome. The council assumed the task of regu­

lating these differences in conformity with the usages

of the other churches, because the dependence of

some congregations on a Jewish peculiarity was

offensive. The Council of Nice, however, did not

declare the Alexandrine cycle of Easter as alone

canonical, but gave the bishop of Alexandria the

privilege of announcing annually the date of Easter

to the Roman curia. Although the synod undertook

the regulation of the dating of Easter, it contented

itself with communicating its decision to the differ­

ent dioceses, instead of establishing a canon; thus

inviting opposition even on this point in due season.

Then began the proceedings against the Meletian

schism, which, on account of the great popularity of

the movement, took an extremely mild development

and cost its founder only suspension from office, but

no degradation. Finally there fpllowed the pre­

scription of twenty canons or rules of discipline:

(1) prohibition of self‑castration; (2) establishment

of a minimum term for catechizing; (3) prohibition

of the presence in the house of a cleric of females who

might bring him under suspicion; (4) consecration

of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial

bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan;

(5) provision for two provincial synods to be held

annually; (6) exceptional position granted to Alex­

andria and Rome as episcopal sees; (7) recognition

of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem; (8)

provision for agreement with the Novatians;

(9‑14) provision for mild procedure against the

lapsed during the persecution under Licinius; (15­

16) prohibition of the removal of priests; (17) pro­

hibition of usury among the clergy; (18) prece­

dence of bishops and presbyters over deacons in

taking the Eucharist; (19) declaration of the in­

validity of baptism by heretics; (20) attitude at

prayer on Pentecost.

On July 25, 325, the fathers of the council cele­brated the emperor's twentieth anniversary and then dispersed. In his valedictory address the emperor again informed his hearers how averse he was to. all dogmatic controversy, and in a circular letter he announced the accomplished unity of practise by the whole Church in the matter of the celebration of Easter. But the illusion of victory did not last, the emperor experiencing stroke after stroke of disappointment and misfortune. The continuation of the synod in 327 questioned every result achieved in 325. Arius as well as the friends punished with him and the Meletians regained nearly all rights which they had lost.


II. The Second Council, 787 A.D.: Although image‑worship had been finally abolished by the energetic measures of Constantine V., whose icono‑



elastic tendencies were shared by his son, Leo IV., after the latter's early death, his widow Irene, as regent for her son, began its restoration, moved thereto by personal inclination and political con­siderations (see IMAGES AND IMAGE WORSHIP, II.). When in 784 the imperial secretary Tarasius was appointed successor to the patriarch Paul, he ac­cepted on condition that the intereommunion with the other churches should be reestablished, that is, that the images should be restored. However, as a council claiming to be ecumenical had abolished image‑worship, another ecumenical council was necessary for its restoration. Pope Hadrian was invited to participate and gladly accepted. The invitation intended for the oriental patriarchs could not even be delivered to them. The Roman legates were an archbishop and an abbot, each named Peter.

In 786 the council met in the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople, but soldiers in collusion with the opposition entered the church and broke up the assembly. The government now resorted to a stratagem. Under the pretext of a campaign, the iconoclastic bodyguard was sent away from the capital, disarmed, and disbanded. The council was again summoned to meet, this time in Nice, since Constantinople was still distrusted, assembling Sept. 24, 787. It numbered about 350 members; 308 bishops or their representatives signed. Ta,rar sius presided, and seven sittings were held in Nice. Proof of the lawfulness of image‑worship was drawn from Ex. xxv.17 sqq.; Num. vii. 89; Heb. ix. 1 sqq.; Ezek. xli., and Gen. xxxi. 34, but especially from a series of passages of the Church Fathers; the authority of the latter was decisive. It was deter­mined that "As the sacred and life‑giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere," to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. There­fore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, not, however, the veritable worship which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone‑for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever adores the image adores in it the reality of what is there represented.

The clear distinction between the adoration of­fered to God and that accorded to the images may well be looked upon as a result of the iconoclastic reform. The twenty‑two canons drawn up in Con­stantinople also served ecclesiastical reform. Care­ful maintenance of the ordinances of the earlier councils, knowledge of the Scriptures on the part of the clergy, and care for Christian conduct are required, and the desire for a renewal of ecclesiasti­cal life is awakened. The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of image‑worship in no uncertain terms, and the patriarch sent a full



account of the proceedings of the council to Ha­

drian, who caused the same to be translated, which

translation Anastasius later replaced with a better

one. For a treatment of the opposition view, see


BIHLAOoRAP87: I. The collection of sources which super sedee all others is Patrum Nicaaorum nomina . . . aoci­ata opera, ed. H. Gelser, H. Hilgeofeld. O. Cunts, ad­jecta ed tabula peopraphica, Leipaie, 1899. The canons are in the collections of Mansi and Labbe, and m Hefele, Concidienpeachichte, i. 378‑431. Eng. trawl. t. 282‑447. and Fr. tranal., vol. i., note the material on the Coptic fragments in this tranal., i. 1125‑1138, on various editions of the canons, pp. 1139‑1176, and on canon 8. pp. 1182­1202; an Erg. tranel. with voluminous discussion is in

J. Chrystal. Authoritative Christianity, vol. i., Jersey City, 1891. Consult: J. Kaye, Some Account of the Council of Nicaaa, London, 1853; B. H. Covvper Analeda Nicama, London, 1857; E. Revillout, Le Comas de Niche d'apna lea testes copies, 2 vols., Paris, 1880‑99; W. Bright, Notes on the Canons of as PirM Pour General Councils. London, 1892; C. A: Bernoulli, Daa Konsil von Nieda, Freiburg, 1896; J. J. Lias, The Nicene Creed, London, 1897, new ed., 1910; O. Braun, De sancta Nicama aynodo, Minter, 1898; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 622‑832, and in gen­eral works on the church history of the period; Harnack, Dogma, vols. ii. iv. passim, and in general works on the history of doctrine; consult also the literature on the CON­aTANnNOPOLITAN CREED.

II. Hefele, ConcsZienpeachichte, iii. 441 eqq., Erg. tranal., v. 342‑‑400; C. W. F. Welch, Hiatorie der %etzereien, x.

419 eqq., 11 vols., Leipsie. 1762‑85; Schaff, Church His­tory, iv. 459‑463; literature under CAROLINE Booze: IMAGES AND IMAGE WORSHIP, II.




NICCOLLS, SAMUEL JACK: Presbyterian; b. at Greenfield Farm, Westmoreland Co., Pa., Aug. 3, 1838. He was graduated from Jefferson College (now Washington and Jefferson), Cannonsburg, Pa. (A.B., 1857), and Western Theological Seminary, Alleghany, Pa. (1860). He was then pastor of Falling Springs Presbyterian Church at Chambers­burg, Pa. (1860‑64), and since 1864 has been pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, St. Louis, Mo. He was also chaplain of the 126th Pennsylvania Volunteers in 1863, and a member of the com­mittee on the revision of the Westminster Con­fession of Faith in 1890 and 1900. He is likewise president of the board of directors of McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, and has written The Eastern Question in Prophecy (St. Louis, 1878). He is evangelical in belief and holds the Reformed theology.


NICEPHORUS: Celebrated Byzantine writer and patriarch of Constantinople; b: in Constantinople c. 758; d. at the monastery Ton Agathou June 2, 829. Of a strictly orthodox family, which had suf­fered from the earlier iconoclasm, he nevertheless entered the service of the State, became cabinet secretary, and under Irene took part in the synod of 787 as imperial commissioner. He then withdrew to a cloister that he had founded on the Propontis, until he was appointed director of the largest home for the destitute in Constantinople. After.the death


of Tarasius, although still a laymin, he was chosen patriarch by the wish of the emperor (Easter, April 12, 806). The uncanonical choice met with opposition from the strictly clerical party of the Studites, and this opposition was intensified to an open break when Nicephorus, in other respects a very rigid moralist, showed himself compliant to the will of the emperor by reinstating the excom­municated priest Joseph. After the emperor's death (811), Nioephorus cooperated in the removal of Staurakios and in the elevation of the incapable Michael Rhangabe. With Emperor Leo the Arme­nian, who was raised to the throne by the army in 813, Nicephorus was at first on good terms. When, however, this emperor revived with ever‑increasing harshness the policy of the iconoclastic Isauriane, a conflict broke out, which led at the same time to a reconciliation of Nicephorus with the Studites. After vain theological disputes, in December, 814, there followed personal insults. Nicephorus at first replied to his removal from his office by ex­communication, but was at last obliged to yield to force, and was taken to one of the cloisters he had founded, Tou Agathou, and later to that called Tou hagiou Theodorou. From there he carried on a literary polemic for the cause of the image‑wor­shippers against the synod of 815; on the occasion of the change of sovereigns, in 820, he at least obtained the promise of toleration. He died revered as a confessor. His remains were solemnly brought back to Constantinople on Mar. 13, 847, and interred in the Church of the Apostles, where they were annually the object of imperial devotion.

Compared with Theodore of Studium, Nicephorus appears as a friend of conciliation, learned in patria­tics, more inclined to take the defensive than the offensive, and possessed of a comparatively chaste, simple style. He was mild in his ecclesiastical and monastical rules and non‑partizan in his historical treatment of the period from 610 to 769 (Historia ayntomoa, breviarium). His tables of universal history (Chronographikort syntomon), in passages extended and continued, were in great favor with the Byzantines, and were also circulated in the West in the Latin version of Anastasius. The principal works of Nicephorus are three writings referring to iconoclasm: Apoloogeticus minor, probably com­posed before 814, an explanatory work for laymen concerning the tradition and the first phase of the iconoclastic movement; Apologeticus major with the three Antirrhetici against Mamonas‑Conatantine Copronymus, a complete dogmatics of the belief in images, with an exhaustive discussion and refu­tation of all objections made in opposing writings, as well as those drawn from the works of the Fathers; the third of these larger works is a refutation of the iconoclastic synod of 815 (ed. Serruys, Paris, 1904). Nicephorus is lacking in originality and follows the path marked out by John of Damascus. His merit is the thoroughness with which he traced the liter­ary and traditional proofs, and his detailed refuta­tions are serviceable for the knowledge they afford of important texts adduced by his opponents and in part drawn from the older church literature.

E. voN DOB6cHt7TZ.

BrardoaHAPBr!: The " History •• was edited by D. Petaviue, Paris, 1616, by 1. Bakker in CBHB, Bonn, 1837, thence taken into MPG, c., beet ed. by C. de Boor, Leipsic, 1880; the Chronopraphikon was edited by J. Goar, Paris, 1852, by Dindorf for CSHB, Bonn, 1829, is in MPG, c., and ed. De Boor, Leipsic, 1880. An Rpistola ad Leonem lll. is in MPG. cii. 1037‑68. On the Vita by a pupil of Niceph­orus, Ignatius, in ASB, March, ii. 704‑726, MPG, c. 41­160. and in De Boor's ed., ut sup., pp. 139‑217, of. Von Dobscheta in Byzantinische Zeitsehrift, xviii (1909), 41‑105; a lecture on his exile by Theophanes is in MPG, c. 160‑188; the lives of Theodore the Studite and his correspondence are pertinent, in MPG, xcix. 113‑328, 988, 1005, 1173, 1317. Consult further: Krumbacher, peschichte, pp. 71 sqq., 349 eqq., 985‑966; Fabriciu&‑Hades, Brbiiolheca Ormea, vii. 603 sqq., Hamburg, 1801: G. Finlay. Hist. o) the Byzantine and Greek Empires, i. 113 aqq., London, 1854; J. Hergenr6ther, Photius, i. 261‑286, Regensburg, 1867; H. Gelzer, $estue Julius Africanus, ii. 1, pp. 384­388, Leipsic, 1885; T. Zahn, Gaachichte des neutedanest­iiehen Kamm, ii. 295, ib. 1891; C. Thomas, Theodore von 3tudion, pp. 67‑138, Oanabrffek, 1892; K. Holl, Enthusi­asmua and Bussgnualt, pp. 282, 319, Leipsic, 1898; BL. ix. 249‑259.

NICEPHORUS, CALLISTUS XANTHOPULUS: Church historian of the fourteenth century. Dur­ing the reigns of the PaleoIogues there were several writers of the name of Xanthopoulos. Two monks of Mount Athos, Callistus (patriarch 1397 A.D.) and Ignatius his brother, wrote a tmctate on ascetics, while Gabriel composed hymns for liturgical use. Theodore attended the Council of Florence (1439) as secretary. But the most celebrated of the name was Callistos or Callistou (i.e., " son of Callistos "), who grew up at Constantinople and was trained, as it seems, by the famous George of Cyprus (patriarch 1283‑89) in close relationship with Nicephorus Chumnos, Theodore Metochites, Maximos Planudes, and Michael Gabras, a coterie of classical students who, like the humanists of the fifteenth century, cultivated style and phraseology often at the ex­pense of sense. The Emperor Andronicus was their adored patron, since he supported Greek culture and orthodoxy against the Latins.

Except for a few homilies, prayers, hymns, and commentaries, poems, and epigrams, the authen­ticity of which needs further investigation, the name of Nicephorus is chiefly connected with his ecclesi­astical history in eighteen books, under the acrostic letters: Nikephorou Kalliatou (610 A.D.). Thiswork has been severely criticized by most Roman Catho­lic and Protestant writers, but has received high praise from the great T(lbingen master Baur. As de Boor has pointed out, the whole work is nothing but a modernization of an anonymous church his­tory of the tenth century. It is not valuable even for the reconstruction of its older sources (such as the Hint. eccl. of Eusebius), because the Byzantine author roughly paraphrases them. Some apocry­phal matter is all that possesses interest.

E. voN Dossc$t)Tz.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: His remains, including the "History;' a Catalogue impertttorum d patrwarcharunn Condantinopoli­tanorum, and a Carmen de exeidio Hierowlynaitano are in MPG, cxlv.‑cxlvii. Consult: Krumbaeher, Geschichte, pp. 291‑293; Fabricius‑Hades, BsOliotheca Grmca, vii. 437‑444, Hamburg, 1801; G. J. Vow, De historicia Gracia, pp. 367‑368, Leipsic, 1838; F. C. Baur, Die Epoehen der kimhliAen Geachichteachreibung, pp. 32 sqq., Tebingen, 1862; C. de Boor, in Z%(#, vi (1884), 478‑494; J. Bides and L. Parmentier, in Revue de l'instruction publique en Beige, xl (1897). 161‑178; Papadopoulos‑Herameus, in Bysantinische Ze0schrift, ai (1902), 38 sqq.

Niestas Aeominatus Nicholas I.


IWICETAS ACOliQNATUS: Byzantine historian and theologian; b. at Chonee (the ancient Colossee, whence he is often called Choniates); d. at Niceea after 1210. Rising to high offices of state, he was governor of the province of Philippopolis when Frederick Barbarossa marched through that dis­trict in 1189; but on the taking of Constantinople by the Latins in 1203 he fled with many others to Nicsea. The Historic Byzantina of Nicetas, in twenty‑one books, embraces the period from 1180 to 1205, and is noteworthy for reliability and good judgment. His theological studies found their culmination in his " Treasury of Orthodoxy." This begins with an account of Judaism and Hellen­iam, followed by a presentation of the chief doctrines of the Church. The fourth book begins the polemics against Simon Magus, and thus prepares the way for the ultimate consideration of many obscure heresies. The latter books are devoted to Islam, the Roman Catholics, and the dive news of opin­ion within the Greek Church. The work is, there­fore, an indispensable source for a knowledge of the heresies of the twelfth century, though only the first five books (in Latin translation) and a portion of the twentieth book have as yet been published (reprinted in MPG, !xxxi=.1101‑~11~44, cal. 9‑281).


BrswoasnPay: T. Uepensky wrote an account of Nioetae in Russian. St. Petersburg. 1874; Srummaeher, Geeehichte, pp. 91‑92, 281 eqq.; C. Neumann. ariwhiaeha Gesehichts­whreZer . . . in ID. Jahrhuaderf. pp. 103 eqq., Laipaic, iris.

NICETA3, DAVID: Bishop of Dadybra in Paphlagonia; d. 880. He was one of the most distinguished of the Byzantine panegyrists and de­voted himself particularly to the eulogy of the apos­tles. His productions have little historical basis, however; and his panegyrics on certain saints are equally valueless. His biography of the Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople, on the other hand, is of distinct historical importance. His works, which also include lengthy comments on the poems of Gregory Naaianaen, are in MPG, iv. 682,842, xxxvill. 842‑846, cv. 15‑582. (PHILIPP MEYER.)

BmLIOGRAPHY: A. Mai, Patrum "ova brbliothaca, vi. 2, pp. 3‑8. 8 vols., Rome, 1852‑71; Fabriciue‑Harlee, Balio­t4aea Groca, vii. 747‑749, Hamburg. 1801; P. Meyer, in JPT, 1888, pp. 386 sqq.; Hrumbaeher, Geaehiehte, pp. 187, 879 et passim; B1lmrdiniscAm Zeitschrif4 1900, pp. 268 eqq.

RICETAS PECTORATM: Greek mystic and polemic author of the eleventh century. He was a monk at Studium and a pupil of Simeon the younger, from whom he received his mystical trend. Here belong a series of his writings, especially the three hundred " Chapters " (ed. Nicodemus Hagi­orites, in his Philokalia, Venice, 1782, and in MPG, cxx. 852‑1009). Nicetas likewise wrote a biog­raphy of Simeon, edited in Romaic, by Dionysios Zagoraios in his edition of Simeon the younger (1790; 1886), and also collected his teacher's works. He polemized both against the Roman Catholics in his " On Unleavened Bread and Sabbath Fasting and the Marriage of the Clergy " (ed. A. K. Demetra­copulos,in his Bibliatheca eccteaiaatfca, pp. 18 sqq., Leipsic, 1866), and against the Armenians and

Roman Catholics in " On Leavened and Unleavened Bread" (ed. J.. Hergenr6ther, in his Monuments Grarca adveraus Photium, pp. 139 sqq., Regensburg, 1869). Nicetas was the author of many other works, twenty‑seven of which are enumerated by, Deme­tracopulos (ut sup. pp. 5 aqq.).

Скачать документ

Похожие документы:

  1. Three hundred years of african-american writing edited and with an introduction by deiidre jviullane anchor books a division of random house inc new york first anchor books edition october 1993

    ... shout; and in a moment were gone, flying, like a flock of crows, over the field, over the fence, and over ... in 1909 Du Bois joined a group of about fifty other prominent black and ... of their churches, and lost support of their bishops and fellow ministers. ...
  2. The Culture of Critique An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

    ... their downfall, the Jews were always a thorn in the side of the craftsmen and peasants who were ... : The Minister and Cabinet did not trust the average Canadian to respond in ...
  3. A discussion on the beet means of opposing Luther

    ... their original contributions in case of withdrawal, and the records of these contributions were burned. The site of ... of churches. All ministers and churches are equal, no one having any authority over ...
  4. Ways of Russian Theology Fr George Flofovsky

    ... and deposed those bishops in compliance, announcing its actions in the name and ... and in all places he was like the shadow of the apple tree.” Shadow and sign were ... Over Procurator of the Synod and later minister ... vols:, Sergiev Posad, 1909-1912). 59. “ ...
  5. Arts and culture a n introduction to the h umanities

    ... In 1500, there were over two hundred printing presses in Europe; soon there were seven in ... minister of state, and other great mandarins of the court, in ... of a side projection where the chickens had huddled and there were plows and a harrow piled up in ...

Другие похожие документы..