NICOL, William, the inventor of the invaluable polarizing prism (Light, vol. xiv. p. 612), was born about 1768, and died at Edinburgh in September 1851. Nothing is known of his early history, ⅛eyond the fact that, after amassing a small competence as an itinerant popular lecturer on various parts of natural philosophy, he settled in Edinburgh to live a very retired life in the society of his apparatus alone. Besides the invention of his prism (of which we are told that he himself did not understand the mode of action), he devoted himself chiefly to the examination of fluid-filled cavities in crystals, and of the microscopic structure of various kinds of fossil wood. In the preparation of the sections of wood he introduced improvements of the utmost value. Before his time only the roughest slices were employed. His skill as a working lapidary was very great; and he executed a number of lenses of garnet and other precious stones, which he preferred to the achromatic microscopes of the time. The majority of the few, though important, papers which he published are to be found in the old and new Edinburgh Philosophical Journal.
9th ed. Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 17, p. 489 [193 words — estimated reading time: 2 minutes]
NICOLAI, Christoph Friedrich (1733-1811), a German author and bookseller, was born on the 18th of March 1733, at Berlin, where his father was a bookseller. He was educated at a real-school in Berlin, and in 1749 went to Frankfort-on-the-Oder to learn his father’s business. In 1752 he returned to Berlin, and soon began to take part in current literary controversy. At that time the leaders of critical opinion in Germany were Gottsched and Bodmer. In 1755 Nicolai issued a book, Briefe über den jetzigen Zustand der schönen Wissenschaften, in which he tried to show that each of these writers was in his own way narrow and intolerant. This work secured for the author the friendship of Lessing, whose power as a critic was then beginning to be recognized. In 1757 Nicolai devoted himself exclusively to literature; but next year, after the death of his brother, who had continued the elder Nicolai’s business, he found it necessary to resume the life of a bookseller. He did not, however, abandon his literary labours. In association with his friend Moses Mendelssohn he had established, in 1757, the periodical called Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften, and this he conducted until 1760. From 1761 to 1766 he contributed to the Briefe, die neueste Literatur betreffend ; but it was Lessing’s work that made this series famous. For many years (from 1765 to 1791) Nicolai edited the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek, a periodical which served as the organ of the so-called popular philosophers, who warred against authority in religion and against what they conceived to be extravagance in literature. The new movement of ideas represented by Herder, Goethe, Schiller, Kant, and Fichte he was incapable of understanding, and he made himself ridiculous by foolish misrepresentation of their ...aims. Of Nicolai’s independent writings, perhaps the only one of permanent value is his Anekdoten von Friedrich II. His romances are forgotten, although Leben und Meinungen des Herrn Magisters Sebaldus Nυthanker had a certain reputation in its day. His Beschreibung einer Reise durch Deutschland und die Schweiz was attacked by many writers, and it proved that in middle life he had become in a new way not less bigoted than the authors whose bigotry he had spent much of his time in exposing. Nicolai died on the 8th of January 1811. He wrote an Autobiography, which was published in 1806. See Nicolai’s Leben und literarischer Nachlass, by Göckingk (1820).
9th ed. Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 17, p. 489 [412 words — estimated reading time: 3 minutes]
One of a sect in the ancient Christian church, so named from Nicolas, a deacon of the church of Jerusalem. They held that all married women should be common to prevent jealousy. They are not charged with erroneous opinions respecting God, but with licentious practices. Revelations 2.
St. John says in his Revelation, to the angel of the church of Ephesus, But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate,” Rev. ii, 6; and again, to the angel of the church of Pergamos: So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate,” Rev. ii, 15. These are the only two places where the Nicolaitans are mentioned in the New Testament: and it might appear at first, that little could be inferred from these concerning either their doctrine or their practice. It is asserted, however, by all the fathers, that the Nicolaitans were a branch of the Gnostics: and the epistles, which were addressed by St. John to the seven Asiatic churches, may perhaps lead us to the same conclusion. Thus to the church at Ephesus he writes: Thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles and are not, and hast found them liars,” Rev. ii, 2. This may be understood of the Gnostic teachers, who falsely called themselves Christians, and who would be not unlikely to assume also the title of Apostles. It appears from this and other passages, that they had distinguished themselves at Ephesus; and it is when writing to that church, that St. John mentions the Nicolaitans. Again, when writing to the church at Smyrna, he says: I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan,” Rev. ii, 9. The Gnostics borrowed many doctrines from the Jews, and thought by this means to attract both the Jews and Christians. We might therefore infer, even without the testimony of the fathers, that the Gnostic doctrines were prevalent in these churches, where St. John speaks of the Nicolaitans: and if so, we have a still more specific indication of their doctrine and practice, when we find St. John ...saying to the church in Pergamos, I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication,” Rev. ii, 14. Then follow the words already quoted, So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.” There seems here to be some comparison between the doctrine of Balaam and that of the Nicolaitans: and I would also point out, that to the church in Thyatira the Apostle writes, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols,” Rev. ii, 20. The two passages are very similar, and may enable us to throw some light upon the history of the Nicolaitans. Tertullian has preserved a tradition, that the person here spoken of as Jezebel was a female heretic, who taught what she had learned from the Nicolaitans: and whether the tradition be true or not, it seems certain, that to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication, was part of the practice of the Nicolaitans.
These two sins are compared to the doctrine of Balaam: and though the Bible tells us little of Balaam’s history, beyond his prophecies and his death, yet we can collect enough to enable us to explain this allusion of St. John. We read, that when Israel abode in Shittim, the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab: and they,” that is, the women, called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods,” Num. xxv, 1, 2. But we read farther, that when the Midianites were spoiled and Balaam slain, Moses said of the women who were taken, Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor,” Num. xxxi, 16. This, then, was the insidious policy and advice of Balaam. When he found that he was prohibited by God from cursing Israel, he advised Balak to seduce the Israelites by the women of Moab, and thus to entice them to the sacrifices of their gods. This is what St. John calls the doctrine of Balaam,” or the wicked artifice which he taught the king of Moab: and so he says, that in the church of Pergamos there were some who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. We have therefore the testimony of St. John, as well as of the fathers, that the lives of the Nicolaitans were profligate and vicious; to which we may add, that they ate things sacrificed to idols. This is expressly said of Basilides and Valentinus, two celebrated leaders of Gnostic sects: and we perhaps are not going too far, if we infer from St. John, that the Nicolaitans were the first who enticed the Christians to this impious practice, and obtained from thence the distinction of their peculiar celebrity. Their motive for such conduct is very evident. They wished to gain proselytes to their doctrines; and they therefore taught that it was lawful to indulge the passions, and that there was no harm in partaking of an idol sacrifice. This had now become the test to which Christians must submit, if they wished to escape persecution: and the Nicolaitans sought to gain converts by telling them that they might still believe in Jesus though they ate of things sacrificed unto idols.” The fear of death would shake the faith of some; others would be gained over by sensual arguments: and thus many unhappy Christians of the Asiatic churches were found by St. John in the ranks of the Nicolaitans.
We might wish perhaps to know at what time the sect of the Nicolaitans began; but we cannot define it accurately. If Irenæus is correct in saying that it preceded by a considerable time the heresy of Cerinthus, and that the Cerinthian heresy was a principal cause of St. John writing his Gospel, it follows, that the Nicolaitans were in existence at least some years before the time of their being mentioned in the Revelation; and the persecution under Domitian, which was the cause of St. John being sent to Patmos, may have been the time which enabled the Nicolaitans to exhibit their principles. Irenæus indeed adds, that St. John directed his Gospel against the Nicolaitans as well as against Cerinthus: and the comparison which is made between their doctrine and that of Balaam, may perhaps authorize us to refer to this sect what is said in the second Epistle of St. Peter. The whole passage contains marked allusions to Gnostic teachers. There is another question concerning the Nicolaitans, which has excited much discussion. It is a question entirely of evidence and detail; and the two points to be considered are, 1. Whether the Nicolaitans derived their name from Nicolas of Antioch, who was one of the seven deacons: 2. Supposing this to be the fact, whether Nicolas had disgraced himself by sensualindulgence. Those writers who have endeavoured to clear the character of Nicolas have generally tried also to prove that he was not the man whom the Nicolaitans claimed as their head. But the one point may be true without the other: and the evidence is so overwhelming, which states that Nicolas the deacon was at least the person intended by the Nicolaitans, that it is difficult to come to any other conclusion upon the subject. We must not deny that some of the fathers have also charged him with falling into vicious habits, and thus affording too true a support to the heretics who claimed him as their leader. These writers, however, are of a late date; and some, who are much more ancient, have entirely acquitted him, and furnished an explanation of the calumnies which attach to his name. We know that the Gnostics were not ashamed to claim as their founders the Apostles, or friends of the Apostles. The same may have been the case with Nicolas the deacon; and though we allow, that if the Nicolaitans were distinguished as a sect some time before the end of the century, the probability is lessened that his name was thus abused; yet if his career was a short one, his history, like that of the other deacons, would soon be forgotten: and the same fertile invention, which gave rise in the two first centuries to so many apocryphal Gospels, may also have led the Nicolaitans to give a false character to him whose name they had assumed.
NICOLAS, Sir Nicholas Harris (1799-1848), English antiquary, was born 10th March 1799, the fourth son of John Harris Nicolas of East Looe in Cornwall, whose Breton ancestors had settled there on the revocation of the edict of Nantes. He entered the navy in 1808, and was promoted lieutenant in 1815. At the close of the war he retired from the service and began to study for the bar. He was called at the Inner Temple in 1825, but his business as a barrister was chiefly confined to the claims of peerage before the House of Lords, his special genealogical knowledge rendering his assistance in such cases invaluable. On genealogical questions and those connected with the descent of ancient families his researches have thrown much important light. Of works on these subjects he published a considerable number, the most useful being Notitia Historica (1824; expanded in 1835 for “Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopaedia” into Chronology of History), Synopsis of the Peerage of England (2 vols., 1825), and Testamenta Vetusta (2 vols., 1826). Nicholas wrote a number of valuable biographical notices for Pickering’s Aldine edition of the poets, among others those of Chaucer, Surrey, Wyatt, Collins, Cowper, Thomson, Burns, and Kirke White. His “Lives of Isaak Walton and Charles Cotton,” prefixed to Pickering’s edition of the Complete Angler, are also the fruit of independent and original research. The service of Nicolas in the royal navy seems to have left an impress on his mind which his antiquarian studies tended rather 'to deepen than obliterate; and it is where his passion for antiquarian research was exercised in illustrating the historic glories of England and the heroic deeds of famous individuals that he found the most congenial scope for his powers. His magnumopus is his ...History of the Orders of Knighthood of the British Empire (4 vols., 1841-42). For his previous researches into the history of the orders he was, in 1831, made a knight of the HanoverianGuelphic order and in 1832 chancellor of the Ionian order of St Michael and St George, and in 1840 he was advanced to the grade of the Grand Cross. In his later years Nicolas was occupied chiefly with works connected with the naval achievements of England. He published Dispatches and Letters of Admiral Lord ViscountNelson (7 vols., 1844-46); and he was engaged until a few days before his death in editing the papers of Sir Hudson Lowe. He died at Cape Curé, near Boulogne, August 3, 1848.
Sir Harris Nicolas left an unfinished History of the British Navy, in 2 vols. He became a member of the council of the Society of Antiquaries in 1826, but on account of a controversy with the other members in regard to the management of its affairs he withdrew in 1828. Besides exposing in various pamphlets what he regarded as serious defects in its management, he made frequent reference to them in the Retrospective Review, of which he was joint-editor. He also instituted an inquiry into the proceedings of the Record Commission, the publications of which he regarded as not commensurate in value with the money expended on them. But, although, owing to the warmth of his feelings and his keen interest in his subject, Nicolas was apt to involve himself in keen controversy, he never cherished personal animosity, and his motives were otherwise above suspicion. A complete list of the writings of Nicolas will be found in the Gentleman's Magazine for October 1848.
9th ed. Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 17, p. 489 [582 words — estimated reading time: 4 minutes]
NICOLE, Pierre (1625-1695), one of the most distinguished of the Port-Royalists, a scholar of great excellence, and, according to Bayle (who had no particular reason for praising him), “one of the best writers in Europe,” was born at Chartres in 1625. Like his friend Pascal he was a precocious boy, though his precocity showed itself in classics and in miscellaneous reading, not in mathematics, and it was when he was transferred from his native town to Paris to finish his education that the rising school of Port Royal fixed its attention upon him. At an early age he was made a master in the Port Royal school, where his special department was classical instruction, though he is said to have taken no small part in the famous Art de Penser or Port Royal logic. He shared in the history of the school, and with the exception of Arnauld and Pascal may be said to have been its most accomplished member. Not a little of the materials of the Provinciales is said to be due to him, and at the completion of Pascal’s great work he translated it into Latin. One of the most virtuous men in France, he was a favourite of the notoriousduchess of Longueville for politico-theological reasons, and he was the immediate master of Racine. This latter circumstance brought about an incident thoroughly discreditable to the dramatist. Nicole was the author of certain Lettres sur les Visionnaires or à un Visionnaire, as they are most frequently cited. The actual title of the collected work is Les Imaginaires et les Visionnaires (1667). In these he had attacked Desmarets de Saint Sorlin, and with the excessive puritanism which characterized his sect had reflected on fiction and the drama generally. Racine, without a shadow of personal provocation, replied in two letters of great asperity, of ...which the first was actually published, and the second only delayed (it was published after its author’s death) owing to the judicious counsel of Boileau. But Nicole made no reply, and indeed public opinion condemned Racine without hesitation. Nicole, who, owing to the theological disputes in which he was concerned, had never fully taken orders, and who had been compelled at one time to leave France, devoted himself in his later years chiefly to moral philosophy. The first volume of his Essais de Morale appeared in 1671, and the rest of his life was chiefly occupied on this book, though he wrote many others. He was warmly admired by many of the best judges among his contemporaries, Madame de Sévigné deserving especial mention, and numerous selections of his ethical works have appeared in recent times. Modern opinion hardly recognizes in Nicole the right to hold the place close to Pascal which his own time accorded to him. His style is clear, simple, and correct, but a little flat and monotonous; his thought sensible, just, and charitable, but somewhat destitute of depth, subtlety, and originality. He was certainly one of the best men of his time, but as certainly not one of the greatest; and his reputation was due first to his scholarship, secondly to his moderation. He died of apoplexy, November 16, 1695, and had latterly somewhat separated himself from the Jansenists. Numerous stories are told of his personal timidity and unreadiness in oral argument. It does not appear that his works (by far the most important of which is the already-mentioned Essais de Morale, Paris, 1671, sç.) were ever collected.
9th ed. Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 17, p. 490 [582 words — estimated reading time: 4 minutes]
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, as well as Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
In the same way, some of you also hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.
This site uses cookies to remember your display preferences (search sources and editions, Bible version, auto-link, images, light/dark theme). No personal data whatsoever is collected. Privacy Policy
