Nicaea, Empire of 519Further reading: Arthur T. Hatto, trans., The
Nibelungenlied (New York: Penguin, 1969); Michael S.
Batts, “The Nibelungenlied,” in European Writers: The Mid-
dle Ages and the Renaissance.Vol. 1, Prudentius to Medieval
Drama,ed. William T. H. Jackson and George Stade (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1983), 211–236; Hugo
Bekker, The Nibelungenlied: A Literary Analysis(Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1971); Winder McConnell,
ed., A Companion to the Nibelungenlied(Columbia, S.C.:
Camden House, 1998); David G. Mowatt and Hugh
Sacker, The Nibelungenlied: An Interpretative Commentary
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967).
Nicaea, Councils of There were two important ecu-
menical councils at Nicaea (present-day Iznik, Turkey), a
town in Bithynia in the northwestern part of ANATOLIA
not far from CONSTANTINOPLE. The first in May and June
of 325 dealt with the problem of ARIANISM. The second in
September and October of 787 was about ICONOCLASM
and the cult of icons.
COUNCIL OF 325After CONSTANTINE’s victory over Licinius (ca. 250–324)
in 324, Christianity in the Roman Empire was divided
over the teaching of Arius or Arianism. Arius was a priest
from ALEXANDRIAwho taught that the Christ was not
coeternal with the supreme Father. He was at best an
adopted son of God and did not have a human soul. The
emperor convoked a general synod or council at Nicaea
in 325; wanting to impose unity on his church, he
opened the council himself. It was presided over by a
small papal delegation and was attended by perhaps as
many as 300 bishops, but only a few from the West. In
acrimonious and long debates, an Arian formula of FAITH
was proposed and overwhelmingly rejected. EUSEBIOS OF
CAESAREA’s creed was introduced and given general
approval. The ideas of Arianism continued to exist. The
council also decided the date of the celebration of
EASTER. It was to be held on the first Sunday after the
first full moon after the vernal equinox.
COUNCIL OF 787The second Council of Nicaea was convened in 787 by
the emperors IRENEand Constantine VI (r. 780–797) and
Patriarch Tarasios (r. 784–806) of Constantinople, to
abolish the decisions of the council of Hiereia in 754 and
to restore the cult of ICONS. It was the last ecumenical
council recognized by both the Orthodox and the Roman
Church. Initially meeting in 786 at Constantinople,
it had been broken up by soldiers allied to bishops faith-
ful to Iconoclasm. Representatives of Pope Adrian I
(772–795), of the Oriental patriarchates, the patriarch of
Constantinople, perhaps 365 bishops, and more than
130 monks were present. At the council notorious Icon-
oclast bishops were allowed back to their sees despite
the objections of monks after the prelates publicly
accepted the cult of icons. The council compiled texts to
support the use of icons and refuted the acts of the
Council of Hiereia. It further rejected the accusation of
idolatry in the cult of icons. The marks of respect and
veneration, such as prostration and kissing, paid to icons
and other sacred objects did not constitute adoration,
which was due to God alone. The council justified devo-
tion to icons, as had been accepted by the church from
the earliest times. The council ended by restoring icons
in all public and private places and imposed correct ges-
tures of veneration toward them. The decisions of Nicaea
II were accepted with hesitation and difficulty in the
West. The CAROLINGIANSrejected them at the Council of
Frankfurt and presented their rejection in the LIBRICAR-
OLINI.The popes did not officially accept them until the
ninth century.
Further reading:Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of
the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. (London: Sheed and
Ward, 1990), 1.1–19, 1.131–156; Marvin M. Arnold,
Nicaea and the Nicene Council ofAD 325 (Washington,
Mich.: Arno, 1987); Robert Grant, Religion and Politics at
the Council of Nicaea(Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1973); Colm Luibhéid, The Council of Nicaea(Gal-
way, Ireland: Galway University Press, 1982); D. J. Sahas,
Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-Century Iconoclasm
(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1986).Nicaea, Empire of This was the temporary Byzan-
tine state established by refugees from CONSTANTINOPLE
during the capture and sack of the city by the crusaders
of the Fourth CRUSADE. Just before the sack of Con-
stantinople in 1204, Theodore I Laskaris (r. 1205–21),
the son-in-law of the emperor Alexios III Angelos (r.
1195–1203), left the city to cross to ANATOLIA, because
of dynastic conflicts over the Byzantine throne and with
the crusaders. He was not initially well received in the
nearby town of Nicaea, but after a year of fighting and
the sacking of the capital by the crusaders, he was
finally recognized as the new emperor. He soon restored
the Orthodox Church, now to be centered in Nicaea. He
was crowned in 1208 by its first patriarch, Michael IV
Autoreianos (r. 1208–14). Though not recognized as
emperor in the West or by the Frankish rulers of Con-
stantinople, he survived due to a military victory in
1211 at ANTIOCHover the SELJUKTurks and by the sign-
ing of a peace treaty in 1214 and proposing marriage
alliances with the Latin emperor in Constantinople,
Henry of Hainault (r. 1206–16).
His son-in-law and successor, John III Vatatzes
(r. 1222–54), considered a saint after his death, moved the
seat of government near Smyrna and began the full recon-
struction of a new Byzantine state. To restore its economic
life, John III Vatatzes promoted agriculture and the devel-
opment of land, especially on his exemplary personal and