The basis of our knowledge about the place (facility) where the First Council of Nicaea took place in 325 is provided by written sources. These are, first of all, the works of Eusebius of Caesarea, the author of “Vita Constantini” (Life of Constantine), and then Sozomen, the author of “History of the Church”, and Theodoret, the author of “History of the Church”. The first of them stated: […] he [i.e. Emperor Constantine the Great] gathered them from all the provinces at his court, received them in the royal palace… […] The day came appointed for the council to meet for the final solution of the controversial issues, all its participants were present in the central building of the palace, which he seemed to surpass in size all the others… (Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine). In the text of Sozomen (he died around 440) we read: […] they gathered together in the palace because the ruler decided to take part in a meeting with them… There were plenty of seats on both sides, stretching in rows along the walls of the building occupied by the emperor, which was a huge building, larger than all other buildings… ( Sozomen, translated by S.J. Kazikowski). The next passus comes from the work of Theodoret (born around 393): […] After everyone had gathered, the emperor ordered a large hall to be prepared in the palace and ordered as many benches and chairs as possible to be placed in it, so that there would be enough space for everyone. bishops… (Teodoret, translated by H. Pietruszczak).

Based on the above sources, we know that the deliberations were held in the largest room of the imperial palace in Nicaea.

There is also another source text: “The Life of St. Stephen the Younger”, written by the patriarchal deacon in 809 (so several centuries after the event we are interested in), the author of which gives – most likely incorrectly – a completely different place where the First Council of Nicaea would be held. He wrote that the council took place in the church of Divine Wisdom, which is identified with the ruins of the basilica located in the city center. This raises another question: what do we know about the “history”, form and decoration of the building in which the First Council of Nicaea took place? We do not know when the palace in Nicaea was built. It is known, however, that during the period when Constantine the Great organized the council, this building already existed. Therefore, it was built before 325. From the text by the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus “Roman History” from the end of the 4th century, we receive information that the palace still existed at that time.

From the information written by Procopius of Caesarea, the author of “On Buildings”, we know that the palace partially collapsed in the 6th century during the reign of Justinian the Great, who ordered its renovation: The local palace, which had already partially collapsed, was also carefully restored in its entirety… (Procopius of Caesarea, translated by P.Ł. Grotowski). The next message comes from the work of Gregory of Caesarea “Laudation of the 318 Fathers” – a document prepared at the request of an unknown bishop of Nicaea. The text should be dated to the period between 727 and 787, and most likely between 727 and 740. Gregory wrote about the church of Holy Fathers, which he identified with the place where the council sessions took place. The text opens with the speech of Constantine the Great and the establishment of the principles of the Christian faith. There is also a description of the place where the council took place. The author states that there was a huge room in the palace, the decorative beauty of which has been preserved to this day thanks to the care of the Holy Fathers. He also mentions that during the meeting concluding the proceedings in the room with the so-called a spring of oil gushed out from the mesomphalon, i.e. a round slab in the floor in the very center of the apse (arch or vault). The author clarifies that the appearance of the spring took place near the gate leading to the hall, which was located from the east.

We also learn from the text that Constantine ordered the participants to sign the document with the final decisions of the council. However, two of them died during the proceedings. Therefore, the document was taken to their graves, which, as we learn, were also in this building. The text of the “List” of the council participants, also informs about two burials of the council participants, mentioned by name, Chrysanthus and Musonius. The described Church of the Holy Fathers is mentioned in the context of the Arab siege of 727. The author of another very important source is the English pilgrim Willibald – the first known person who visited the spot where, as it was said, the First Council of Nicaea took place, around 727-729. He reported that it was a building similar to one of the temples on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem “where the Lord was Assumed into Heaven” and that it had no roof (illa aecclesia est desuper patula et sine tectua), and that it contained images of the participants of the council.

Willibald describes the structure he saw in Nicaea as a church, and in post-conciliar accounts it is described as one of the largest rooms in the imperial palace. Where could this discrepancy come from? It is likely that over time, the council’s meeting place was transformed into a church due to its importance for Christianity. This would not be the only example of such action. Moreover, combining palace and sacral construction was a common tradition of late antiquity. Further key information comes from sources relating to the attack on the city by Arabs in the first half of the 8th century, shortly before or after Willibald’s visit to Nicaea. The Arab army then tried to capture the city. Information on this subject comes from Syrian and Greek sources. The first of them is “Anonymous Chronicle”. Its author gave an incorrect date for this event – 729, stating that the Arabs stormed the city for 40 days. The Chronicle of Michael the Syrian dates this event to 731, stating that the Arabs attacked the city and destroyed its walls. The next mention comes from the “Short History” – the chronicle of Patriarch Nicephorus, and the most complete information is contained in the “Chronicle” of Theophanes the Confessor. The latter states that the Saracens invaded the city in 727, destroyed part of the walls, but did not capture the city thanks to the intercession of the Holy Fathers, who were worshiped in the local church, where their images were located.

The above texts feature the destruction of part of the city walls. This is confirmed in architectural sources. Moreover, the victory of 727 is commemorated by an inscription that still exists in the wall near the Istanbul Gate on the inside of tower no. 71. The tower, as well as the entire section of the wall between towers no. 70 and 72, are probably rebuilt after the destruction caused by the Arab invasion. They were rebuilt using marble and columns from older ancient buildings. The source of information about the building we are interested in may also be the fact that the Second Council of Nicaea took place in another building, namely in the church of St. Hagia Sophia, which constitutes the basis for the assumption that the Church of the Holy Fathers may have been in a technical condition that did not allow the organization of such an event inside. This could have been a consequence of the terrible earthquake that took place in 740 – about which Theophanes the Confessor wrote that only one church in Nicaea survived it.

LATER SOURCES

There are, however, later texts in which a mosaic with representations of the Holy Fathers is mentioned. The first passus comes from the text “Admonition of the Old Man regarding Holy Icons” from around 750, but this text is incomplete and unclear. Theophanes writes of the church as still existing around 813. A few years later (820-828), Patriarch Nicephorus, who certainly visited Nicaea, mentioned the same composition twice. He wrote that the church built in honor of the Fathers still preserves, among other holy representations, images of the Fathers and Constantine in a brilliant mosaic.

Michael Attaleiates, author of “History” (ca. 1080), reported that in 1065 the temple of the Holy Fathers suffered from an earthquake. After this event, the building was probably renovated and later served as a monastery, mentioned in an inscription from 1291. This place may also be identical with the rotunda with a dome belonging to the Patriarchate of Nicaea, where a synod of bishops was held in 1232. The council met “in the dome of the oaton” (ovatum – egg-shaped).

In 1234, a Latin delegation arrived in Nicaea and was shown the church where the First Council was supposedly held: […] they brought us to another church where the First Council was held, showing us the holy Fathers depicted on the wall who took part in this council… This information comes from the text “Disputatio latinorum et graecorum”.

Based on the analysis of the above texts, it is possible to perform a preliminary hypothetical reconstruction of the shape (construction and spatial layout) of this object, determine the location of the gate leading to it, the appearance of part of its floor and mosaic decoration, as well as at least two burials located inside. Knowledge about Byzantine architecture in the 6th century (using analogies of similar palace buildings from that period) also allows us to imagine the general style of the design of this building after its renovation undertaken on Justinian’s initiative. In turn, knowledge about general events taking place in the region and the city, e.g. earthquakes, provides additional information about potential factors that could have influenced the condition of the facility.

The first important clue about what the palace in Nicaea might have looked like is the time of its construction (before 325) and the culture of its creators. Knowledge about palace structures of that period allows us to assume that the palace in Nicaea was not – as we imagine it today – one separate building. Instead, it was a complex composed of many free-standing buildings with various functions (residential, representative and audience, religious, economic), scattered over a larger area, just like other examples of palace buildings known to us, e.g. in Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Ephesus, Athens, Philippi.

One of the most important elements of the palace complexes of that period and the cultural zone were large audience halls, built on a central plan (i.e. a circle, an octagon, a square, or their combination – e.g. a circle or an octagon inscribed in a square). The palace was built before 325 and was built so briefly that its technical condition was good enough to serve as an imperial residence and a place for the council, allowing us to hypothetically assume that it was built no earlier than about 3-2 decades before the First Council. , i.e. at the end of the 3rd century. This corresponds to the period of political and construction activity of Diocletian (emperor in the years 284-305). He created a political system of tetrarchy, according to which power in the empire was exercised simultaneously by four rulers, himself controlling the eastern Mediterranean region. His imperial city was Nicomedia in Bithynia, near which Nicaea is located. The state management system he introduced was associated with the construction of palace buildings located in various centers (perhaps also in neighboring Nicaea?) – the seats of the ruler traveling around the empire. On his initiative, palaces were built in Nicomedia and Split – where he moved after relinquishing power. Both of them faced the sea (a similar example is the Bukoleon imperial palace in Constantinople). It is possible that a similar planning assumption was made for the palace in Niaea, which could have faced the lake.

The second important clue regarding the appearance of the palace comes from Willibald’s text, which said that the Church of the Holy Fathers (most likely a building that served as an audience hall in the 4th century and was later transformed into a temple) was similar to one of the churches on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. where the Lord was Assumed into Heaven” and that it was uncovered and that it contained paintings of the participants of the council. Willibald was probably referring to the Ascension Church in Jerusalem, which he had visited earlier. What is known about him? Three Christian temples were built on the Mount of Olives: the Basilica of Eleon, the Basilica of Gethsemane and the rotunda of the Assumption/Ascension called Inbomon – i.e. the place from which the Lord ascended to heaven. The Ascension was described by the bishop of Gaul, Arkulf/Arculf (679-688), who stated that it was a rotunda without a roof inside and with three galleries. The results of archaeological research are also a source of knowledge about this temple. Excavations carried out in 1959 revealed part of the rotunda walls under the octagonal Crusader church (Saladin rebuilt the Crusader church into a mosque in 1187 and covered it with a dome; this building still stands today). It is believed that this object had a diameter of approximately 18 m. We reconstruct the interior only on the basis of a drawing made in 670 by Arkulf. Based on this, we can conclude that the audience hall of the palace in Nicaea was most likely the so-called a central type building on a rotunda plan.

Rotunda (circular), like octagon (octagonal), hexago (hexagon), tetrakonkhos (square), or objects erected on the plan of an octagon inscribed in a square or a circle inscribed in a square, was a type of building well known to Roman architecture, which found wide use in early Christian architecture. The rotunda was topped with a dome with a hole in the center of the dome – the oculus. The particularly large oculus in the Ascension Church may have resulted from its association with the Ascension (an opening around/above the site of Christ’s ascension into heaven). The architecture of central-plan Christian buildings was inspired by popular Roman mausoleums. The prototypes of Byzantine central buildings may have been palace audience halls. Examples of this type of assumptions are the Golden House of Nero and the Minerva Medica in Rome, the octagon and rotunda in Thessalonica, the tetrakonkhos inscribed in a square in Ephesus and the Constantinople palace halls of Antiochos and Lausos, and the hexagon on the Manganas identified with Maryna’s palace. It is estimated that the facility in Nicaea was large enough to accommodate 200-300 participants and approximately 400 accompanying people.

The message of S. Gerlach – a Lutheran chaplain and envoy to the High Porte in the years 1573-1578, who had the opportunity to talk to the then bishop of Nice – Cyril, may also have potential source value. According to the latter, there were supposed to be three temples in the city itself, including the (large) church of Panagia (i.e. most likely Koimesis / Jacinta Monastery), next to which one could supposedly see “a wonderful/huge/spacious place where the council of 318 bishops took place.” Summarizing the above source information, we obtain the following data or we can formulate the following initial hypotheses about the layout, structure and decoration of the building of interest to us, where the First Council of Nicaea took place in 325: (1) this building was an element of a larger layout architectural structure, which could include buildings with a different function, religious buildings (during the Christian period, a building/s with a religious function could have been built within the palace complex), analogies to which may be palace complexes known, for example, from Thessalonica, Athens, Ephesus, Philippi, the Sessorian Palace in Rome, Bosra, Qasr ibn-Wardan. (2) the palace complex may face the lake, similarly to the contemporary palace structures in Nicomedia and Split and Bukoleon in Constantinople; (3) it was a central-type building, built on a rotunda plan, to which rotundas, e.g. Minerva Medica in Rome or the rotunda in Thessalonica, may be analogous; (4) it is possible that a few centuries later the object could have been rebuilt on an oval plan (if we assume that it was identical to the egg-shaped object – ovatum); (5) the relics of the architectural structure of the building should contain in the lower parts elements (wall thread, type and size of brick, method of stone processing) specific to Roman construction of the late 3rd-early 4th century and characterize the structure of the building up to the parts of the walls dating from the 6th century . It is probable that there are architectural and decorative elements made of porphyry, specific to imperial buildings of this period; (6) relics of architectural structures may contain traces of damage caused by an earthquake that occurred in the 6th century; (7) the relics of the architectural structure should contain elements specific to the construction of the 6th century, characteristic of the activity of Justinian the Great, resulting from the reconstruction of the building by the emperor, including wall construction techniques (opus mixtum) typical of that period, type and sizes of bricks and masonry techniques , large-scale use of architectural and decorative elements made of white Proconnesian marble and decoration specific to this period, use in a smaller number of elements made of other exclusive imported rock raw materials, e.g. green antico verde marble; (8) relics of the architectural structure may contain traces of damage caused by earthquakes in 740 and 1065 and renovation after 740; (9) it is probable that the building still existed in the first half of the 13th century, therefore the relics of the architectural structure may contain traces of its reconstruction after 1065, associated with its significant reconstruction, including a change in the spatial layout from the circular plan (rotunda) on an oval plan (ovatum); (10) the architectural structure may contain traces of a gate leading to the building from the east, the character of which may be representative, including a portico on a plan, e.g. of a hemicycle (as e.g. in the complex of the Constantinople palaces of Antiochos and Lausos); (11) there may be relics of mosaics in the architectural structure of the interior of the building, as well as in the layer resulting from its collapse; (12) the object may contain relics of a floor with a centrally located omphalion; (13) burials may occur within the buliding;