The Cambridge Companion To The Council Of Nicaea

Young Richard Kim download

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-
council-of-nicaea-young-richard-kim-42978454

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

The Cambridge Companion To The Council Of Trent Nelson H Minnich

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-council-
of-trent-nelson-h-minnich-52660340

The Cambridge Companion To The Ancient Greek Economy Sitta Von Reden

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-ancient-
greek-economy-sitta-von-reden-46788208

The Cambridge Companion To The Dutch Golden Age Helmer J Helmers

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-dutch-
golden-age-helmer-j-helmers-47542980

The Cambridge Companion To The Essay Kara Wittman Evan Kindley

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-essay-
kara-wittman-evan-kindley-47998682
The Cambridge Companion To The Australian Novel Nicholas Birns Louis
Klee

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-
australian-novel-nicholas-birns-louis-klee-48306160

The Cambridge Companion To The Federalist Jack N Rakove Colleen A

Sheehan

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-
federalist-jack-n-rakove-colleen-a-sheehan-48775094

The Cambridge Companion To The Australian Novel Nicholas Birns

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-
australian-novel-nicholas-birns-49406042

The Cambridge Companion To The Canterbury Tales Frank Grady

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-
canterbury-tales-frank-grady-49606562

The Cambridge Companion To The Gospels 2nd Stephen C Barton

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-the-
gospels-2nd-stephen-c-barton-49860472
the cambridge companion to
THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

Every Sunday, Christians all over the world recite the Nicene Creed as a
confession of faith. While most do not know the details of the
controversy that led to its composition, they are aware that the
Council of Nicaea was a critical moment in the history of
Christianity. For scholars, the Council has long been a subject of
multi-disciplinary interest and continues to fascinate and inspire
research. As we approach the 1,700th anniversary of the Council, The
Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea provides an
opportunity to revisit and reflect on old discussions, propose new
approaches and interpretative frameworks, and ultimately revitalize a
conversation that remains as important now as it was in the fourth
century. The volume offers fifteen original studies by scholars who
each examine an aspect of the Council. Informed by interdisciplinary
approaches, the essays demonstrate its profound legacy with fresh,
sometimes provocative, but always intellectually rich ideas.

Young Richard Kim is Associate Professor in the Department of Classics

and Mediterranean Studies and the Department of History at the
University of Illinois at Chicago. He is the author of Epiphanius of
Cyprus: Imagining an Orthodox World (2015), which won the North
American Patristics Society Best First Book Prize (2016).
cambridge companions to religion
This is a series of companions to major topics and key figures in theology and
religious studies. Each volume contains specially commissioned chapters by
international scholars, which provide an accessible and stimulating introduction
to the subject for new readers and non-specialists.

Other Titles in the Series

apostolic fathers Edited by Michael F. Bird and Scott Harrower
american catholicism Edited by Margaret M. McGuinness and Thomas F.
Rzeznick
american islam Edited by Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi
american judaism Edited by Dana Evan Kaplan
american methodism Edited by Jason E. Vickers
ancient mediterranean religions Edited by Barbette Stanley Spaeth
apocalyptic literature Edited by Colin McAllister
augustine’s city of god Edited by David Vincent Meconi
augustine’s “confessions” Edited by Tarmo Toom
karl barth Edited by John Webster
the bible, 2nd edition, Edited by Bruce Chilton
the bible and literature Edited by Calum Carmichael
biblical interpretation Edited by John Barton
black theology Edited by Dwight N. Hopkins and Edward P. Antonio
dietrich bonhoeffer Edited by John de Gruchy
john calvin Edited by Donald K. McKim
christian doctrine Edited by Colin Gunton
christian ethics Edited by Robin Gill
christian mysticism Edited by Amy Hollywood and Patricia Z. Beckman
christian philosophical theology Edited by Charles Taliaferro and Chad
V. Meister
christian political theology Edited by Craig Hovey and Elizabeth Phillips
the cisterian order Edited by Mette Birkedal Bruun
classical islamic theology Edited by Tim Winter
jonathan edwards Edited by Stephen J. Stein
evangelical theology Edited by Timothy Larsen and Daniel J. Treier
feminist theology Edited by Susan Frank Parsons
francis of assisi Edited by Michael J. P. Robson
the gospels Edited by Stephen C. Barton
the gospels, second edition Edited by Stephen C. Barton and Todd Brewer
the hebrew bible/old testament Edited by Stephen B. Chapman and Marvin
A. Sweeney
hebrew bible and ethics Edited by C. L. Crouch
the jesuits Edited by Thomas Worcester
the cambridge companion to

THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

Edited by

Young Richard Kim

University of Illinois at Chicago
University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, ny 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi – 110025, India

79 Anson Road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108427746
doi: 10.1017/9781108613200
© Cambridge University Press 2021
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2021
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

names: Kim, Young Richard, 1976– editor.
title: The Cambridge companion to the Council of Nicaea / edited by Young Richard
Kim, “The University of Illinois at Chicago”.
description: Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY : Cambridge University
Press, 2021. | Series: Cambridge companions to religion | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
identifiers: lccn 2020035128 (print) | lccn 2020035129 (ebook) |
isbn 9781108427746 (hardback) | isbn 9781108448116 (paperback) |
isbn 9781108613200 (ebook)
subjects: lcsh: Council of Nicaea (1st : 325 : Nicaea, Turkey)
classification: lcc br210 .c35 2021 (print) | lcc br210 (ebook) | ddc 262/.5–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020035128
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020035129

isbn 978-1-108-42774-6 Hardback

isbn 978-1-108-44811-6 Paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
 For Ewan and Rhys
여호와를 경외하는 것이 지혜의 근본이요
거룩하신 자를 아는 것이 명철이니라
Prov. 9:10
 Contents

List of Figures page xi

List of Contributors xii
Acknowledgements xiv
List of Abbreviations xvi

1. Introduction 1
yo u n g ri c h a r d ki m

Part I: Contexts 17
2. Imperial Fathers and Their Sons: Licinius, Constantine,
and the Council of Nicaea 19
ra ym o n d va n d am
3. Arius and Arianism: The Origins of the Alexandrian
Controversy 43
re bec ca ly ma n

Part II: The Council 63

4. Hosting the Council in Nicaea: Material Needs
and Solutions 65
ine jacobs
5. Reconstructing the Council of Nicaea 90
david m. gwynn
6. The Elephant in the Room: Constantine at the Council 111
h. a. drake

Part III: Outcomes 133

7. The Creed 135
ma rk j. ed w ar d s
8. The Twenty Canons of the Council of Nicaea 158
andreas w eckwe rth

ix
x Contents

9. The Council of Nicaea and the Celebration of the Christian

Pasch 177
da ni el p. m c c a r t h y
10. Narrating the Council: Eusebius on Nicaea 202
a a r o n p. j o h n s o n

Part IV: The Aftermath 223

11. The Reception of Nicaea and Homoousios to 360 225
sara parvis
12. The Emergence of the Pro-Nicene Alliance 256
mark de lcogliano
13. Apollinarius and the Nicene Homoousion 282
kell ey mcca rthy s poerl
14. The Council of Ariminum (359) and the Rise
of the Neo-Nicenes 305
d. h. wi lliams

Part V: The Long Reception 325

15. The Legacy of the Council of Nicaea in the Orthodox
Tradition: The Principle of Unchangeability
and the Hermeneutic of Continuity 327
p a u l l . g a v ri l y u k
16. Catholic Reception of the Council of Nicaea 347
g e o f f r e y d. d u nn

Appendices 368
Appendix 1: The Signatories 368
i an m la dj o v
Appendix 2: Letter of the Synod of Nicaea
to the Egyptians 376
Bibliography 378
Index 416
 Figures

1.1 From The Da Vinci Code (© 2006 Columbia Pictures

Industries Inc.). All Rights Reserved. Courtesy of
Columbia Pictures page 2
4.1 Plan of Roman Nicaea, from Foss 1996a, Fig. 1 (© Holy
Cross Orthodox Press). Used with permission 66
4.2 Aerial view of Nicaea [GoogleEarth, accessed October 1,
2018]. Used under the terms of fair usage as per the
rightsholders terms and conditions 67
4.3 The Galerian complex at Thessaloniki (reconstruction)
(© Ephorate of Antiquities of Thessaloniki City). Used
with permission 81
4.4 The so-called throne room in Trier (Wikimedia
Commons, author: Pudelek (Marcin Szala)) 83
4.5 The Octagon in the Galerian complex at Thessaloniki
(axonometric section, graphic reconstruction)
(© Ephorate of Antiquities of Thessaloniki City). Used
with permission 85
Appendix 1.1 Select Bishoprics Represented at Nicaea, 325 (map by Ian
Mladjov). Used with permission 375

xi
 Contributors

Mark DelCogliano is Associate Professor, Theology Department, University of

St. Thomas (Minnesota, USA).
H. A. Drake is Research Professor, Department of History, University of
California Santa Barbara (California, USA).
Geoffrey D. Dunn is a Fellow of the Australian Humanities Academy, Associate
Professor, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin (Poland), and Research
Associate, University of Pretoria (South Africa).
Mark J. Edwards is Professor of Early Christian Studies, Faculty of Theology and
Religion, Oxford University (UK).
Paul L. Gavrilyuk is Aquinas Chair in Theology and Philosophy, Theology
Department, University of St. Thomas (Minnesota, USA).
David M. Gwynn is Reader in Ancient and Late Antique History, Department of
History, Royal Holloway University of London (UK).
Ine Jacobs is Stavros Niarchos Foundation Associate Professor of Byzantine
Archaeology and Visual Culture, The Ioannou Center for Classical and Byzantine
Studies, Oxford University (UK).
Aaron P. Johnson is Associate Professor of Classics and Humanities, Lee
University (Tennessee, USA).
Young Richard Kim is Associate Professor in the Department of Classics and
Mediterranean Studies and the Department of History at the University of Illinois
at Chicago.
Rebecca Lyman is Samuel Garrett Professor Emerita of Church History, The
Church Divinity School of the Pacific (California, USA).
Daniel P. Mc Carthy is Fellow Emeritus and former Senior Lecturer, Department
of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin (Ireland).
Sara Parvis is Senior Lecturer, School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh (UK).
Kelley McCarthy Spoerl is Professor, Theology Department, Saint Anselm
College (New Hampshire, USA).

xii
 List of Contributors xiii

Raymond Van Dam is Professor Emeritus, Department of History, University of

Michigan (Michigan, USA).
Andreas Weckwerth is Professor of Ancient Church History and Patristics at the
Catholic University of Eichstätt (Germany).
D. H. Williams is Professor of Religion in Patristics and Historical Theology,
Department of Religion, Baylor University (Texas, USA).
 Acknowledgements

Oddly enough, the first step in the production of this volume, an invita-
tion from Beatrice Rehl at Cambridge University Press to become the
editor, came in the autumn of 2016, on a day when I was waylaid by a
sudden case of vertigo and recovering in an emergency room bed. The
journey since then, of course, has been dizzying to say the least. All bad
puns aside, I will say that how I had envisioned the volume, and how it
ended up, of course, are very different. For one, I deeply regret that I was
ultimately unsuccessful in recruiting more diverse scholars – especially
persons of color – to contribute to this collection of essays. As we
approach the 1,700th year since the Council of Nicaea, I can only hope
that in the next centennial anniversary we will see another Cambridge
Companion with as diverse a team of writers as I hope that the humanis-
tic disciplines will actually be with its teaching and research practi-
tioners. This of course in no way reflects negatively at all on the
authors contained herein; they are, in a word, stellar. I am deeply grateful
to each of them, without whose willingness to work with me, patience,
good humor, insights, expertise, and superb writing, this volume would
not exist. Ultimately, as the editor, any infelicities with respect to
format, typographical errata, and more seriously, gaps in the actual
content, are entirely my responsibility. If I had free rein, this volume
would have had double the number of essays, covering many other
interesting subjects and exploring several different trajectories, but
there are wordcount limits, unforeseeable circumstances, and in the
end editorial decisions that shall in the end remain unknown to you,
the reader. Still, I am proud of this volume, and I am hopeful that it will
generate further inquiry and continue an ongoing conversation about the
Council of Nicaea and its lasting legacy.
This project began when I was on faculty at Calvin College (now
University), and I am grateful for the support of colleagues and friends I
received there, and it continued through my time at the Onassis
Foundation, to which I am equally thankful. I want to offer particular

xiv
 Acknowledgements xv

thanks to Anthony Papadimitriou for the life-changing opportunity. I am

fortunate to have a position as a Research Affiliate at the Institute for the
Study of the Ancient World with NYU’s superb research resources,
which contributed greatly to the groundwork for this volume. Finally, I
have found my professional home at the University of Illinois at Chicago,
and I wish to thank in particular Dean Astrida Orle Tantillo for trusting
me to lead the department of Classics and Mediterranean Studies. I also
want to express my appreciation for my colleagues in the School of
Literatures, Cultural Studies and Linguistics, my home department and
my other department, History, and my students, who already in a short
time have inspired and challenged me as a teacher and mentor.
In addition to Beatrice Rehl, I would also like to recognize and thank
the team, past and present, at Cambridge University Press, whose mem-
bers helped and guided me at various points along the publication pro-
cess: Shalini Bisa, Eilidh Burrett, Becca Grainger, Edgar Mendez,
Caroline Morley, and Victoria Parrin. I am also grateful to Akash
Datchinamurthy at Integra Software Services. Finally, I must thank
Nigel Hope, who copyedited the entire volume with precision, profi-
ciency, and professionalism.
Our academic endeavors in many ways seem of lesser significance in
light of the challenges we face today – inequality, violence, racism,
authoritarianism, climate change, amid other forms of injustice. Still, I
believe they contribute to the record of our shared human experience,
and I maintain the conviction that the sum total of our efforts can
meaningfully cultivate mutual understanding and humility. The quality
of what we do while immersed in our books, articles, and critical edi-
tions, pounding away at our keyboards, is of course profoundly shaped by
what we do away from them, and more importantly, with whom. Friends
and family remind us that we are so much more than what we produce.
My wife Betty is a boundless source of inspiration, and there simply are
not enough words to communicate my gratitude to her. I dedicate this
scholarly effort to our beloved sons, Ewan and Rhys, and I will do all that
I can to pass on to them a world that I pray is at least a little more than
today on its way to healing and restoration. S.D.G.
 Abbreviations

Ancient Sources
In the footnotes, whenever possible I have edited all contributions to
follow generally the orthographic and abbreviation conventions (with
modifications) of Lampe 1961 for Greek authors and titles of primary
sources and Blaise and Chirat 1954 for Latin authors and sources. For
ancient authors not in Lampe, I have adopted those of Liddell and Scott
1996 and Glare 1968.

Ambrose of Milan Ambr.

Epistulae Ep.
Apollinarius of Laodicea Apoll.
De fide et incarnatione De fid. inc.
De unione corporis et divinitatis De unione
Christi
Kata Meros Pistis KMP
Canones Apostolorum Can. App.
Athanasius Ath.
Apologia ad Constantium Apol. Const.
Apologia (secunda) contra Arianos Apol. sec.
De decretis Nicaenae synodi De decr.
De sententia Dionysii De sent. Dion.
De synodis Arimini et Seleuciae De syn.
Epistula ad Afros episcopos Ep. Afr.
Epistula ad Epictetum Ep. Epict.
Epistula festivalis Ep. fest.
Orationes tres adversus Arianos Ar.
Tomus ad Antiochenos Tom.

xvi
 List of Abbreviations xvii

(cont.)

Augustine Aug.
De Trinitate De Trin.
Basil of Caesarea Bas.
Contra Eunomium Eun.
Epistulae Ep.
Collectio Avellana Coll. Avell.
Cyril of Alexandria Cyr.
Epistulae Ep.
Epiphanius Epiph.
Panarion Pan.
Eusebius of Caesarea Eus.
Contra Marcellum Marcell.
De ecclesiastica theologia De ecc. th.
De vita Constantini VC
Epistula ad Caesarienses Ep. Caes.
Epistula ad Euphrationem Ep. Euphrat.
Historia ecclesiastica HE
Praeparatio Evangelica PE
Eustathius of Antioch Eust.
Fragmenta Fr.
Gregory of Nazianzus Gr. Naz.
Epistulae Ep.
Orationes Orat.
Hilary of Poitiers Hilar.
Collectanea antiariana Parisina CAP
De synodis De syn.
Fragmenta Historica FH
Liber contra Auxentium Aux.
Mediolanensem
Lactantius Lact.
De mortibus persecutorum DMP
Leontius of Byzantium Leont.
Adversus fraudes Apolloniaristarum Apoll.
Origen Or.
Commentarii in Johannem Jo.
Contra Celsum Cels.
De principiis De princ.
Pamphilus Pamph.
xviii List of Abbreviations

(cont.)
Apologia Origenis Ap. Orig.
Panegyrici latini Paneg. lat.
Philostorgius Phil.
Historia ecclesiastica HE
Phoebadius of Agen Phoeb.
Liber contra Arrianos Ar.
Socrates Socr.
Historia ecclesiastica HE
Sozomen Soz.
Historia ecclesiastica HE
Sulpicius Severus Sulp. Sev.
Chronicorum libri duo Chron.
Tertullian Tert.
Aduersus Praxean Prax.
Theodoret Thdt.
Historia ecclesiastica HE

Modern Sources
ACO Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum
CCSG Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca
CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
CH Church History
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
Dok. Hanns Christof Brennecke, Uta Heil, Annette von
Stockhausen, and Angelika Wintjes, eds. 2007.
Athanasius Werke: Dokumente zur Geschichte des
arianischen Streites. Vol. 3, pt. 1. Lieferung 3: Bis zur
Ekthesis Makrostichos. Berlin: De Gruyter
Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen,
Christian Müller, Uta Heil, and Angelika Wintjes, eds.
2014. Athanasius Werke: Dokumente zur Geschichte
des arianischen Streites. Vol. 3, pt. 1. Lieferung 4: Bis
zur Synode von Alexandrien 362. Berlin: De Gruyter
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers
FC The Fathers of the Church
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten
drei Jahrhunderte
 List of Abbreviations xix

GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies

HTR Harvard Theological Review
JAEMA Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History
JLA Journal of Late Antiquity
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
Lampe 1961 Lampe, G. W. H. 1961. A Patristic Greek Lexicon.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LCL Loeb Classical Library
NBA Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana
NPNF A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
PG Patrologia Graeca
PL Patrologia Latina
PLRE Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum
RHE Revue d’historie ecclésiastique
SC Sources chrétiennes
StPatr Studia Patristica
TTH Translated Texts for Historians
Urk. Hans-Georg Opitz, ed. 1934. Athanasius Werke III.1,
Lieferung 1–2: Urkunden zur Geschichte des aria-
nischen Streites, 318–328. Berlin: De Gruyter
VC Vigiliae Christianae
ZAC Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum
ZKG Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte
 1 Introduction
young richard kim

the council of nicaea as conspiracy

A little over an hour into Ron Howard’s cinematic adaptation of The Da
Vinci Code, for the first time in a major Hollywood film we see
a portrayal of the Council of Nicaea. The brief scene takes place in an
expansive, ornately decorated basilica, ending in an apse whose vault is
decorated with an anachronistic image of an enthroned Christ, who
presides over the proceedings (figure 1.1).
The great hall is filled with scribes sitting at a long table and taking
notes, as a motley crew of attendants, clerics, and bishops, garbed in
decorative robes and capped with lofty miters, gesture wildly at one
another, yelling across the aisle and apparently debating the particulars
of the future of Christianity. As the camera pans across the basilica to the
center of the nave, we see Roman soldiers, equipped with spears, shields,
and helmets with fancy feather plumes and stationed on elevated plat-
forms along the colonnades of the venue, ominously standing guard over
the proceedings. It appears (as far as I can tell) that Constantine is
standing in the center of the basilica, next to the notary’s table, some-
what bewildered at the ferocity of the debate surrounding him.1
The character Leigh Teabing, portrayed in the movie by Sir Ian
McKellen – with a smoky, grandfatherly, and rather pedantic voice – has
just explained how the lifelong pagan emperor Constantine decided to unify
his disintegrating empire by imposing a single religion. In Brown’s novel,
Teabing describes Constantine as a shrewd businessman, placing his bets
on the “winning horse” that was Christianity. He elucidates the rationale
for the Council in this way:

1
In cinematic history, Constantine does appear in a few films, for example, In hoc signo
vinces (1913) and Constantine and the Cross (1961), originally titled Constantino il
grande. List in Solomon 2001, 329. As the titles indicate, the thematic concern in these
films was Constantine’s conversion to Christianity. See Carlà-Uhink 2017. On
Constantine in additional modern media, see Goltz 2008.

1
2 young richard kim

figure 1.1 From The Da Vinci Code (© 2006 Columbia Pictures

Industries Inc.). All Rights Reserved. Courtesy of Columbia Pictures.

“Indeed,” Teabing said. “Stay with me. During this fusion of reli-
gions, Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian trad-
ition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the
Council of Nicaea.” [. . .] “At this gathering,” Teabing said,
“many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon – the
date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacra-
ments, and of course, the divinity of Jesus.”

Up to this point in history, we read, many of the followers of Jesus viewed

him as a “mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man
nonetheless. A mortal,” and thus the Council of Nicaea was
a conspiratorial event, where a majority vote decided that the man
Jesus was now the Son of God. Why, we may ask? Teabing explains:

By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine

turned Jesus into a divinity who existed beyond the scope of
the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable.
This not only precluded further pagan challenges to Christianity,
but now the followers of Christ were able to redeem themselves
only via the established sacred channel – the Roman Catholic
Church.2

Dan Brown’s fanciful novel (and its cinematic adaptation), of course,

is entertaining fiction, but the lines between story and history can be
extremely blurry and even a single page can divulge a whole series of
outlandish claims, as we have just seen above, and a single scene can be

2
All quotations from Brown 2003, 232–33.
 introduction 3

chock-full of anachronisms.3 But perhaps in an unexpected way The Da

Vinci Code brought the Council of Nicaea to public awareness, even if
only for a brief moment, as readers and moviegoers learned that some
kind of debate over the status of Jesus Christ unfolded there. The after-
math of the book’s publication witnessed a proliferation of talking-head
documentaries on cable television channels, countless online musings
for and against Brown’s conspiracy theories, and books by a mix of
scholars, “experts,” pastors, and laypeople. Many of these publications
now sit in stacks in discount bookstores, gathering dust after a short-
lived boon, particularly for the Christian publishing industry. But still,
there is a lingering afterlife to the momentary craze that the novel and
film generated. For example, interested professors and students can even
reenact the debates in a role-playing game in which members of the
“Alexandrian Faction” and the “Arian Faction” try to persuade
undecided delegates to vote for their respective theological positions,
all the while as the emperor Constantine oversees the gathering.4 Such is
in no small part a reflection of a broader public interest in the history of
Christianity that is keen on the developmental, deliberative, and some
might say deceptive aspects of the faith, with a dash of conspiracy, secret
societies, and an all-powerful Magisterium for added intrigue.

the council of nicaea as confirmation

But for many, many Christians all over the world, the story of the
Council of Nicaea was and is something entirely different. While most
have only vague notions of the historical event and its specific circum-
stances, they are certainly familiar with its eponymous creed, which
many recite on a weekly basis. In doing so, they knowingly (or not)
proclaim Nicaea as part of the heritage of their faith and church
communities.5 In describing the creed, the Catechism of the Catholic

3
See Ehrman 2004. Ine Jacobs’s chapter in this volume discusses the venue in which the
council took place, below 82–86.
4
Henderson and Kirkpatrick 2016, which is part of the “Reacting to the Past” game
series developed at Barnard College. For a very interesting review of the game in
practice, see www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2015/3/18/re-enacting-nicaea
[accessed April 28, 2018].
5
For example, on the website of the Episcopal Church describes the Apostles’ Creed and
the Nicene Creed in this way: “We will always have questions, but in the two founda-
tional statements of faith – the Apostles’ Creed used at baptism, and the Nicene Creed
used at communion – we join Christians throughout the ages in affirming our faith in
the one God who created us, redeemed us, and sanctifies us” (www
.episcopalchurch.org/page/creeds [accessed April 28, 2018]). The (translated) text of
the Nicene Creed as found on the website and in most other citations of the creed is
4 young richard kim

Church says, “195: The Niceno-Constantinopolitan or Nicene Creed

draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two
ecumenical councils (in 325 and 381). It remains common to all the great
Churches of both East and West to this day.”6 This catechetical instruc-
tion offers a hopeful lesson on how the creed is shared and held in
common by Christians, as it conveys a sense of continuity from
antiquity to the present, rooted in councils that were ecumenical.7 The
Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria identifies the creed as one of the
pillars of faith.8 And even for a decidedly non-creedal tradition, as
expressed by the United Methodist Church, the perspective of the
Nicene Creed is still positive: “The Nicene Creed set forth the key
affirmations concerning the Christian faith and served as a guide in
combating heretical or false teaching.”9
Those with a bit more knowledge about the history of Christianity
understand that the Council of Nicaea was a crucial moment when the
leaders of the church, contesting the teaching of Arius, “resolved” the
theological debate about the Son in relation to God the Father. For
example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) teaches:

The new emperor [Constantine] soon discovered that “one faith

and one church” were fractured by theological disputes, especially
conflicting understandings of the nature of Christ, long a point of
controversy. Arius, a priest of the church in Alexandria, asserted
that the divine Christ, the Word through whom all things have
their existence, was created by God before the beginning of time.
Therefore, the divinity of Christ was similar to the divinity of God,
but not of the same essence. Arius was opposed by the bishop,

not the original Nicene Creed, but the so-called Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed,
which combines content connected to the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople,
a topic that is discussed in several chapters in this volume.
6
Catholic Church 1994, 53.
7
There is no comment, however, on the procession of the Holy Spirit “from the Father
and the Son,” the latter of which is a source of contention with the eastern Orthodox,
Coptic, and other churches. This is an old dispute over the Latin phrase Filioque, which
is addressed in this volume by Paul Gavrilyuk and Geoffrey Dunn.
8
http://lacopts.org/orthodoxy/coptic-orthodox-church/ [accessed May 10, 2018].
9
www.umc.org/what-we-believe/glossary-nicene-creed, accessed May 10, 2018. An
interesting contrast is offered by the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints: “Mormons do not believe in the Trinity concept because it is not supported
by scripture. It was not until the councils of Nicaea (ad 325) and Chalcedon (ad 451)
that the doctrine of the Trinity was defined. The formal doctrine of the Trinity is not
found in the New Testament because the idea was only introduced hundreds of years
later” (emphasis mine); see www.mormon.org/blog/do-mormons-believe-in-the-
trinity [accessed May 11, 2018].
 introduction 5

Alexander, together with his associate and successor Athanasius.

They affirmed that the divinity of Christ, the Son, is of the same
substance as the divinity of God, the Father. To hold otherwise,
they said, was open to the possibility of polytheism, and to imply
that knowledge of God in Christ was not final knowledge of God.
To counter a widening rift within the church, Constantine con-
vened a council in Nicaea in A.D. 325. A creed reflecting the
position of Alexander and Athanasius was written and signed
by a majority of the bishops. Nevertheless, the two parties
continued to battle each other. In 381, a second council met in
Constantinople. It adopted a revised and expanded form of the
A.D. 325 creed, now known as the Nicene Creed.10

Although the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s description uses phrases like

“of the same substance,” it is not entirely clear from the narrative above
what this “substance” entails, and perhaps the denomination leaves it to
its pastors to clarify, or not, as it were. Christians who have delved even
deeper into the subject may know that the Greek word, homoousios
(ὁμοούσιος) was the term in the creed that described the “same sub-
stance” or “consubstantial” relationship between Father and Son.11
While they may not be able to explain the finer, sophisticated theological
and philosophical meaning and implications of the language of the creed,
they trust that the Council affirmed what the Church already had
received and believed, implicitly or otherwise, about Christ (from the
beginning of the faith), and rejected the incorrect teachings espoused by
those who would ultimately be condemned as heretics. In other words, in
this account of the Council and Creed of Nicaea, we also see
a deliberative element as we did above, but the difference in this case is
that the participants at the Council were defending and defining more
precisely what they already understood or believed to be true rather than
deciding (for the first time) that Christ was divine.12

10
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 2016, 2. Furthermore, it also recognizes the ecclesias-
tical unity of Christian churches based on the council and creed: “The Nicene Creed is
the most ecumenical of creeds. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) joins with Eastern
Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestant churches in affirming it.”
11
Homoousios is often translated into English as “consubstantial” or “of the same
substance,” but of course there is always the risk that something can be “lost in
translation.”
12
Although consider in contrast the teaching of the Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Constantine
asked the bishops, who may have numbered in the hundreds, to come to a unanimous
accord, but his request was in vain. He then proposed that the council adopt the
ambiguous notion that Jesus was ‘of one substance’ (homoousios) with the Father.
This unbiblical Greek philosophical term laid the foundation for the Trinity doctrine
6 young richard kim

Perhaps it is too much a cliché to say so, but there is a certain degree
of resonance to the notion that history is written by the powerful. The
same applies to the disputes of ancient Christianity. Laying exclusive
claim to the moniker “orthodox,” the winners ultimately were able to
control the narrative over the manifold arguments and controversies that
emerged over the books of scripture, theology, ecclesiastical organiza-
tion and leadership, and liturgical practice, among other subjects of
disagreement. Furthermore, the orthodox at times suppressed the writ-
ings and points of view expressed by the losers, branding them “heretics”
and imputing upon them all manner of devious and diabolical motiv-
ations to deceive their followers with their false teachings.13 Such is the
case with Arius, the polarizing figure who initiated the theological quar-
rel that ultimately led to the Council of Nicaea. Those who opposed him
in antiquity, of course, thoroughly demonized him as a blasphemer who
denigrated the divine Christ. For example, a heresiological writer in the
late fourth century offered the following description of Arius: “He was
very tall in stature and wore a downcast expression – counterfeited like
a guileful serpent, he was well able to deceive every innocent heart
through his cunning outer display. For he always wore a short cloak
and a sleeveless tunic. He was pleasant in speech, and people found
him persuasive and flattering.”14 The mellifluous Arius dressed like
a monk, but beneath the seemingly pious outer display was a deceptive
snake. The manner of Arius’s death – essentially excreting his guts into
a latrine in Constantinople – is even more illustrative of how his ancient
opponents vilified him.15 For them, how he died – like the traitor Judas
Iscariot – was proof positive of his depraved character, the falsity of his
beliefs, and his condemnation by God. Such a perspective of an ill-
intentioned Arius persists to this day, such that the Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese of America teaches:

Arius was a protopresbyter of the Church of Alexandria, and in 315,

he began to blaspheme against the Son of God saying that He was
not the true God, consubstantial with the Father, but rather a work
or creation of God and different from the essence and glory of the

as later set forth in the church creeds”; seewww.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/

g201308/trinity [accessed May 11, 2018].
13
This impulse gave rise to the production of anti-heretical writings, collectively iden-
tified by modern scholars as “heresiology” or “heresiography.” On this subject, see Le
Boulluec 1985; Henderson 1998; Smith 2015.
14
Epiphanius, Panarion 69.3.1.
15
Athanasius, Epistulae 54; cf. Epiph., Pan. 69.10.3. On this, see Leroy-Molinghen 1968;
Brennecke 2010; Muehlberger 2015.
 introduction 7

Father [. . .] Arius continued with his heretical teachings, creating

controversy and division in the churches of other cities, which led
to a theological and ecclesiastical crisis throughout the Christian
church.16

While the language of this portrayal is measured, descriptors like “blas-

phemy” and “heretical teachings” make clear how Arius has been
received in this tradition. But is it possible to think of Arius otherwise?
Can we question the traditional narrative of him as a blasphemer and one
who sought to malign Christ? Could we imagine for a moment that Arius
believed he was a true Christian and that he desired to honor and worship
the God he believed in? Perhaps not without some difficulty. Old impres-
sions, shaped by the powerful, die hard.
The other historical figure who is inextricably linked to the Council
of Nicaea is of course the emperor Constantine, who also generates
equally vexing interpretative questions. As a subject of academic but
also public interest, he is never lacking for scholarly attention, and in the
last two decades a steady stream of publications has continued to reeval-
uate the first Christian emperor.17 His role in convoking and presiding
over the Council is well known, but lively debate continues as to his
motivations and desired results. He certainly had embraced some form of
Christianity and favored it, but scholars wrestle with questions of how
deep an understanding he had, how sincere his beliefs were, and how
interested he was in promulgating a particular version of the faith over
and against others. This last question is also why Constantine’s relation-
ship to the Council of Nicaea is so complicated. Were his motives
theological? Political? Pragmatic? Without a doubt, Constantine was
one of the “winners” in history, and yet by strictly “Nicene” standards
one might hesitate to count him among the orthodox, since he was
baptized before his death by Eusebius of Nicomedia, a decidedly non-
Nicene bishop. Yet the same Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
that condemns Arius unequivocally recognizes Constantine (and his
mother Helena) as a saint “Equal-to-the-Apostles,” who “in 325 gathered
the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, which he himself personally
addressed.”18 The Episcopal Church affirms that “Constantine was

16
www.goarch.org/en/fathers-first-ecumenical-council [accessed May 1, 2018].
17
See, for example, Lenski 2006; Van Dam 2007; Stephenson 2009; Girardet 2010;
Leithart 2010; Barnes 2011; Potter 2013; Lenski 2016.
18
www.goarch.org/chapel/saints?contentid=62 [accessed May 10, 2018]. It is worth
noting, however, that the perspective on Constantine by different Christian traditions
is quite varied. For example, the Anabaptists were deeply critical; see Klaassen 1981,
for a brief summary. See also Roth 2013.
8 young richard kim

a strong supporter of Christianity and sought to build a Christian

empire.”19
And so even in this cursory examination of the reception of Nicaea in
a variety of Christian traditions, we are left with the impression that the
council was one of the most important moments in the history of the
church, a point at which its leaders affirmed one of the fundamental
beliefs of the faith, the divinity of Jesus. Furthermore, we see that it is
appropriate to condemn Arius as one of the “losers,” a “heretic,” but to
count Constantine among the righteous. But as much as Dan Brown’s
version of the first Christian emperor begs credulity, the same might be
said of the easy confirmation of Constantine on the “right side” at
Nicaea. These disparate pictures should give us pause, and we ought to
consider if we also have received and implicitly accepted the narrative of
the winners. These kinds of questions will serve as a starting point for
a reflection on the goals of this volume.

yet another study?

The two perspectives we described above lie at opposite ends of
a spectrum – the Council of Nicaea as conspiracy or the Council of
Nicaea as confirmation – but much of the interstitial space is where
scholars have done their most significant work.20 Perhaps one could
make the argument that different disciplinary frameworks and
approaches tend to indicate to some degree where along the spectrum
a given scholar’s interpretation might be found. Historians, especially
those with interest in the politics of religion, might view the Council as
an event driven by the dynamics of power and authority, whereas theo-
logians could see it as the beginnings or a continuation of a sincere effort
to define (and protect) the parameters of right belief. Such an endeavor by
fourth-century Christians necessarily resulted in the marginalization
and condemnation of certain thinkers, such as Arius, as heretics.
Scholars of religious studies, anthropology, psychology, and other discip-
lines have offered and continue to develop additional perspectives. In any
case, there is a capacious, at times contested, yet consistently revisited,
tradition of scholarly inquiry on the Council and its implications in the

19
www.episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/constantine-i [accessed May 10, 2018].
20
The bibliography is as voluminous as it is varied, and I omit here any discussion of the
seminal works of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; see Williams 2001,
1-25, for a useful survey. Rebecca Lyman also discusses in her chapter some of the
major studies on Arius. A good overall starting point is the massive, now classic work,
Hanson 1988. For a survey of events before the Council of Nicaea, see Lö hr 2006a.
 introduction 9

fourth century and beyond.21 The new millennium has seen the produc-
tion of even more excellent studies of Nicaea and its aftermath, and we
fortunately have no shortage of scholarly investigations and fodder for
deep thought and dispute.22
So perhaps it is worth asking why yet another volume, no less
a Cambridge Companion, on a subject that has received so much atten-
tion over the past two centuries? But as we approach a milestone anni-
versary (1,700 years), we can hope that the council and creed will return
again to the public sphere and that the chapters in this volume together
will offer a reassessment of the Council of Nicaea on its own (potentially
unstable) terms.23 We know well the degree to which the council and its
creed did not resolve the theological (and political) issues raised initially
by and associated with Arius, but rather initiated several different and
often competing theological and ecclesiological trajectories that led to
a proliferation of councils and synods, many of which produced add-
itional creeds and confessional statements. Perhaps lost amid the many
detailed studies of the fourth-century debates over the Trinity is the
Council of Nicaea itself, and we have taken for granted our understand-
ing of the event, its historical and ecclesiastical context, its purpose and
intended outcomes, its initial uncertain future implications and impact,
and of course its main players. Therefore a fresh examination can prove
to be very beneficial.
The deep theological interest characteristic of nineteenth- and early
twentieth-century scholarship on the council and the creed, and for these
earlier writers (many of them theologians) their status as markers of
orthodoxy, exposes a set of historiographic challenges that necessarily
come with any interpretation of Nicaea. First, when we examine in
hindsight the council and what unfolded in the ensuing decades, we
can fall into the trap of reading back into the beginning the end result,
that the correlative divinity of the Son (and eventually, the Holy Spirit) in
relation to the Father and to the Godhead was a foregone conclusion and
the inevitable outcome of the theological debates of the fourth century.
As we noted earlier, we simply cannot conceive of a Saint Arius of
Alexandria, let alone the heresiarch Alexander or Athanasius the heretic.
21
Several influential monographs and edited volumes that were published at the end of
the last millennium: Simonetti 1975; Kopecek 1979; Brennecke 1988; Barnes and
Williams 1993; Lienhard 1999; Vaggione 2000.
22
See Ayres 2004; Behr 2004; Parvis 2006; Gwynn 2007; Anatolios 2011;
Galvão-Sobrinho 2013.
23
Surprisingly, there are few studies that concentrate on just the council itself and its
circumstances. See for example, Luibhéid 1982. A more recent examination is offered
by Pietras 2016, albeit with a very pessimistic perspective.
10 young richard kim

We are also compelled to make the logic of the seemingly illogical

Trinity work and to ascertain the reasons why the subordinating
perspective(s) that were held by almost all Christians in one form or
another before the fourth century “lost” in the end.24 In other words,
how did the initially minority view become the majority?
Second, the notion of “ecumenical council” retroactively imagines
a sequence of conciliar gatherings whose results were decided by a fairly
unified group of leaders and thinkers and ratified by all of Christendom.
But again, recent scholarship has demonstrated just how muddy the pic-
ture was, especially in the years between the councils of Nicaea and
Constantinople in 381, the first two so-called ecumenical councils.25 We
recognize our almost complete dependence on the Athanasian narrative,
and for better or for worse, how difficult it is to imagine those he vilified as
anything other than conspirators with malicious intentions and deceptive
tactics.26 The perspective of Athanasius was taken up by later writers,
including Epiphanius, Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen, and so the avail-
able sources function as a sort of feedback loop, mutually reinforcing the
original Athanasian account.27 What we can reconstruct of the ecclesias-
tical history of the non-Nicene Philostorgius provides some counterbal-
ance, but with limitations due to the fragmentary survival of his work.28
We are also well informed to what extent Athanasius himself, a young
attendee, did not appeal to the council and creed as the standards of
orthodoxy until over a decade (or more) after 325. Therefore
a reexamination of the context and outcomes of the events in 325, looking
forward, will allow us to view subsequent developments from the vantage
point of the “starting line” (with its uncertain future) of the debates to
ascertain first the possible intentions of the council itself and second to
explore the question of why the council was not from the beginning the
universally accepted (and ecclesiastically binding) moment that it became
in subsequent centuries. All of these circumstances and developments take
us to the events of 325, which will serve as the pivot point in this volume.

what this volume is . . . and is not

First, let me begin by reflecting on what this Cambridge Companion is
not. It is not designed or intended to provide the reader with

24
Although Behr 2001 offers a thoughtful narrative of the ante-Nicene tradition.
25
A concise summary can be found in Smith 2018, 7–34.
26
Gwynn 2007. Also see Barnes 1993.
27
On these receptions and others, see Lim 1995, 182–216.
28
Amidon 2007.
 introduction 11

a comprehensive, diachronic narrative of the time before, during, and

after the council, and all of its associated events, people, places, and
dates. Nor will it dive into the intricacies of ongoing debates about the
sources, their dates of composition and authorship, their authenticity,
their transmission, and their reliability. Such can be found in already
published works, especially the massive study by Richard Hanson, and
studies by Lewis Ayres, John Behr, and Khaled Anatolios.29 For the
related documents, the classic collection by Opitz and recent updates
by Brennecke, von Stockhausen, and others, are excellent resources.30
Rather, the essays collected here offer several possibilities. Some revisit
old debates and discussions, others ask new questions, and still more
provide different viewpoints on the people, context, and consequences
linked to the Council of Nicaea. My hope is that there is something for
everyone interested in the Council of Nicaea, from the public to the
professional, from the student to the senior scholar, and that the sum
total of the chapters provides perspectives that will enhance the reader’s
thinking about the monumental event, the lead-up to it, and its long
afterlife. As is true of any edited volume focused on a particular topic,
there will be some overlap among the various contributions, and, I am
pleased to say, there are instances of different and even conflicting
interpretations of particular historical or theological problems. But
these only enhance the critical value of the volume, as the chapters
function dialectically as conversation and debate partners with each
other, as they also do with the reader. There will also be noticeable
gaps or subjects not covered. There simply are not enough pages or
acceptable word counts that would make this possible. In some sense,
the bibliography itself of this volume mirrors this potential criticism.
While on the one hand it is lengthy and contains many (and in some
cases) “canon” entries, it is not comprehensive. My ultimate goal is that
the contributions of all of the expert writers in this volume will stimu-
late thought, provoke unexpected reactions, and ultimately inspire
renewed interested in one of the most important – albeit often misun-
derstood – moments in the history of Christianity.

the contributions
Part I of this Cambridge Companion will explore the “contexts” leading
up to the Council of Nicaea, with examinations of the political, social,

29
Hanson 1988. In addition, Ayres 2004b and Behr 2004 each offer concise summaries.
30
See Opitz 1934, Brennecke et al. 2007 and 2014.
12 young richard kim

ecclesiastical, and theological developments that informed and influ-

enced the gathering and its deliberations. Raymond Van Dam offers
a “prelude,” which investigates a series of questions related to the polit-
ical and social context in the lead-up to Nicaea. Eschewing a teleological
perspective that assumes the inevitability of the theology of Nicaea, he
explores how the symbols and language of religion are reflections of
social and cultural concerns. Van Dam pays special attention to the
Tetrarchic framework that in turn led to the rise of Constantine, and
how the ambiguities inherent in his complex rise to power and conver-
sion were very much reflected in the theological debates that emerged
about the Son’s relationship to the Father. Rebecca Lyman studies the
uncertain and contested origins of the theological dispute between
Alexander of Alexandria and Arius, in particular the social, cultural,
and political developments of the years 312–24, which set the stage for
the escalation of the conflict and the convocation of the council. After
surveying previous scholarly interpretations, which are varied and
debated rigorously, she argues that the political, social, and religious
tensions resulting from the empire of Constantine and Licinius and the
development of ascetic ideals and practices in the post-Diocletianic,
post-persecution dispensation set the context in which the theological
dispute between Arius and Alexander unfolded.
In Part II, Ine Jacobs uses her expertise in late antique and Byzantine
archaeology to analyze the material considerations of the council. She
first reflects on the change in locale, from Ancyra to Nicaea, and what
may have motivated it, and then she examines the available remains of
Nicaea (modern Iznik) to ascertain the suitability of the city to host such
a gathering, including practical concerns such as where the imperial
court and officials were housed, where the meeting space was in the
overall landscape of the city, and how and where the delegates were
hosted. Finally, she discusses the broader Constantinian building pro-
gram reflected in other locales and how developments in Christian
architecture resulted from changing liturgical and conciliar needs.
David Gwynn explores the council and what we know about its convo-
cation, participants, and proceedings from a broad perspective. His dis-
cussion includes reflections on the difficulties presented by the
conflicting sources, and in his reconstruction of the events he draws on
later, more secure conciliar documents to tease out insights into what
may have transpired at Nicaea. In addition, he tries as much as possible
to recover the voices and perspectives of the “humble individuals.” Hal
Drake reflects on the “elephant in the room,” namely, the emperor
Constantine, whose presence at the council was an unprecedented
 introduction 13

development. Drake explores what motivated Constantine to be so

intimately involved with the council, shifting attention away from the
usual theological interpretations and back to the political motivations of
the emperor. He considers the significance of Constantine’s earlier deal-
ings with the Donatists, which gave him a framework for how to
approach the Arian controversy. While Constantine sought unity and
harmony in his empire, the internal dynamics of Christianity itself
ultimately made this an impossibility.
In Part III, on the outcomes of the council, Mark Edwards offers
a detailed study of the creed itself. His assessment begins with the
evidence for earlier creeds and creed-making and then analyzes the one
produced at Nicaea, its language, biblical foundations, and theological
implications, including a close look at the history and origin of the term
homoousios. He also examines the anathemas and their allegations.
Finally, Edwards discusses the promulgation and reception of the creed
in the immediate aftermath of the council. Andreas Weckwerth studies
the canons by first considering their textual transmission and their
translation into several languages, and second discussing their purpose
and content. He then shifts to an analysis of their reception and function
in later tradition, in particular how other councils and churchmen under-
stood, adapted, and applied the Nicene canons in subsequent centuries.
Daniel Mc Carthy investigates the debate at the council regarding the
calculation for when to celebrate the Pasch, that is, Easter. He provides
an overview of the Paschal Controversy before and after the fourth
century, and he discusses if and how the issue was resolved at the council
and received by later traditions. Aaron Johnson writes on the council
specifically from the perspective of Eusebius of Caesarea, examining the
theological, ecclesiastical, and political vision of arguably the most
important eyewitness to the council and its aftermath. Eusebius has
left us with several immeasurably important texts, and this chapter
surveys the scholarly debates resulting from various interpretative
issues. Finally, Johnson challenges traditional and perhaps uncritical
arguments about the famous ecclesiastical historian, that he was
a dishonest Arian sympathizer who signed the creed out of cowardice
or that he did so because he was awestruck in the presence of the
emperor. Eusebius was, in fact, an original thinker with a coherent vision
that was deeply influential for later writers.
Part IV examines the aftermath of the council, up to the end of the
fourth century, with careful attention on the theological trajectories
initiated by Nicaea. Sara Parvis argues against recent scholarly assess-
ments that eschew the development of discrete parties, for or against
14 young richard kim

Arius, and correspondingly for or against the Council of Nicaea and its
creed. With close analysis of the evidence, she traces the extent to
which politics, theology, friendships and enmities, and the talent,
ambitions, and charisma of prominent individuals all influenced the
decades-long dispute until the Council of Constantinople in 381. In
particular, she identifies Athanasius as the key player. Mark
DelCogliano discusses the various theological strands in the aftermath
that eventually culminated in the so-called pro-Nicene position, cham-
pioned at first by Athanasius and refined by the Cappadocian fathers:
Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. He
argues that this pro-Nicene alliance was ultimately a consensus-
building movement that borrowed from tactics employed by earlier
theologians, but that it espoused a particular interpretation of the
Nicene Creed that positioned their theology as a middle ground
between the extremes of the theology of Arius and Marcellus of
Ancyra. Kelley Spoerl studies the term homoousios and its implica-
tions for Christology, viewed primarily through the teaching attributed
to Apollinarius of Laodicea, but also in anticipation of the
Christological disputes that unfolded at the end of the fourth century
and through the fifth century. The Council of Nicaea, and the fourth
century in general, are often (mistakenly) described as only trinitarian
in focus, so this chapter offers a valuable corrective to the overly
simplistic binary between the trinitarian fourth and Christological
fifth centuries. Dan Williams examines the fourth-century develop-
ments in the western half of the Roman empire, tracing the pro-
Nicene theological trajectory initiated among others by Hilary of
Poitiers and Marius Victorinus and gradually solidified by prominent
western bishops like Ambrose and Augustine. He demonstrates how
the eventual affirmation of a “neo-Nicene” trinitarian doctrine
was achieved sometime in the 380s, after a protracted struggle against
the Homoian doctrine, which rejected any “substance”-related
terminologies.
Finally, in Part V, the contributions investigate the “long” recep-
tion of the council and creed by two Christian traditions. Paul
Gavrilyuk considers Nicaea from the perspective of the Orthodox
tradition and traces the importance of the council and creed first in
the work of Cyril of Alexandria and then in Byzantine liturgy in the
sixth century. He introduces the idea of the “hermeneutic of conciliar
authority” as evident in later councils, all of which made Nicaea
a crucial reference point, and his chapter concludes with reflections
on the council in light of the pan-Orthodox council, held in Crete,
 introduction 15

June 2016. Geoffrey Dunn begins with an examination of the reception

of the council in the churches of the West up to 1054 and then specif-
ically by the Roman Catholic Church in the centuries following. He
explores broadly the reception of the creed, including the controversy
of the Filioque, and the Canons and their function in church discipline.
Dunn also pays special attention to the modern Catholic reception of
Nicaea.
Together, these chapters together provide a picture of the immedi-
ate, the middle, and the long-term impact of the Council of Nicaea, and
they will inspire new questions and research trajectories, provoke debate
and disagreement, and ultimately contribute to an ongoing conversation
that in reality began as soon as the gathering ended. Seventeen hundred
years is a long time in which to discuss anything, but for the nature of the
Godhead, ecclesiastical leadership and organization, orthodoxy and her-
esy, among other related subjects, perhaps such a span of time is only the
beginning. The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea pays
respect to its forebears but also looks ahead to continued dialogue,
discussion, and debate about the people and their actions, the events
and their outcomes, and the ideas and their lasting legacy in the history
of Christianity.

note to the reader

The chapters in this volume are each followed by a “Select
References” list, rather than a complete bibliography. These lists
include fifteen scholarly works chosen by each author, which are
relevant to the individual chapter’s contents. All works cited in
the contributions can be found in the Bibliography at the end of
the volume.

select references
Anatolios, Khaled. 2011. Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of
Trinitarian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Ayres, Lewis. 2004. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century
Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Behr, John. 2004. The Nicene Faith, Formation of Christian Theology 2.
Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Brown, Dan. 2003. The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday.
Carlà-Uhink, Filippo. 2017. “Thinking through the Ancient World: ‘Late Antique
Movies’ as a Mirror of Shifting Attitudes towards Christian Religion.” In
16 young richard kim

A Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome on Screen, ed. Arthur J. Pomeroy,

307–28. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ehrman, Bart. 2004. Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals
What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galvão-Sobrinho, Carlos R. 2013. Doctrine and Power: Theological Controversy
and Christian Leadership in the Later Roman Empire. Transformation of the
Classical Heritage 51. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goltz, Andreas. 2008. “Der ‘mediale’ Konstantin: Zur Rezeption des ersten
christlichen Kaisers in den modernen Medien.” In Konstantin der Große: Das
Bild des Kaisers im Wandel der Zeiten, ed. Andreas Goltz and
Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen, 277–308. Cologne: Böhlau.
Hanson, R. P. C. 1988. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian
Controversy, 318–81. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Henderson David E., and Frank Kirkpatrick. 2016. Constantine and the Council
of Nicaea: Defining Orthodoxy and Heresy in Christianity, 325 C.E. Chapel
Hill, NC: Reacting Consortium Press.
Lenski, Noel. 2016. Constantine and the Cities: Imperial Authority and Civic
Politics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lö hr, Winrich. 2006a. “Arius Reconsidered (Part 1).” ZAC 9(3): 524–60.
Smith, Mark S. 2018. The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, ad 431–
51. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, Jon. 2001. The Ancient World in the Cinema. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Williams, Rowan. (1987) 2001. Arius: Heresy and Tradition, rev. ed. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Part I
Contexts
 2 Imperial Fathers and Their Sons
Licinius, Constantine, and the Council
of Nicaea
raymond van dam

After the retirement of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, the

grand experiment of four concurrent emperors known as the Tetrarchy
disintegrated in a series of usurpations and civil wars. Before one battle
against a rival, an emperor had a vision of “an angel of God,” and he
taught his troops to recite a prayer (Lactantius [Lact.], De mortibus
persecutorum [DMP] 46.3–6). That divinely inspired emperor was
Licinius, who defeated Maximinus in 313. After his victory Licinius
ruled over the eastern provinces until 324. During this same long decade
the controversy over the priest Arius and his theology intensified in
Egypt and expanded to other eastern provinces. Our fascination with
the emperor Constantine makes it easy to forget that Licinius was the
emperor who presided over the initial stages of the search for the
Christian doctrine of God.
Interpreting the significance of the Council of Nicaea raises similar
challenges about proper contextualization. One problematic issue is
indeed the involvement of Constantine. In the early fourth century
Tetrarchic emperors had initiated persecutions of Christians. But now,
because Constantine had summoned and hosted this council, its convo-
cation might seem to have initiated a new era of harmony between
bishops and emperors, and between church and state. Such an optimistic
presumption overlooks the disruptive impact of this collaboration.
Constantine was a Christian emperor, not merely an emperor who toler-
ated Christianity, and a Christian emperor was such a novelty that
bishops were still figuring out how he was to coexist with the ecclesias-
tical hierarchy. Were they to stand when he entered the council cham-
ber? Should he wait for their permission before sitting on his gold
throne?1 Because theologians had not yet developed a Christian political
philosophy for imagining an emperor as another representative of their

1
According to Eusebius of Caesarea, who attended the council, the answer to both
questions was yes (Eusebius (Eus.), Vita Constantini [VC] 3.10).

19
20 raymond van dam

God on earth, the dominating presence of the emperor at this council

would become an awkward precedent.
A related issue is the inadvertent distortion introduced by our own
perspectives. Because the Council of Nicaea appeared to be a strictly
Christian event, modern interpretations often reflect devotional, even
pietistic, perspectives. Christianity is treated, sometimes uncon-
sciously, as sui generis, a unique way for people to configure their lives
around specific beliefs and practices; this assumption seemingly allows
modern scholarship to discuss early Christianity in isolation from other
aspects of society. In fact, Christianity was one among many cults in the
Roman world, and religion in general competed with other symbolic
idioms that enabled people to find meaning and identity in their daily
lives and represent themselves within their communities. In this more
expansive perspective, theology becomes a medium certainly for think-
ing about the Christian God, but also for thinking with God as another
symbolic category, similar to Jupiter, the supreme deity in the pantheon
of traditional Roman cults. As a result, direct disagreements about the-
ology were also implicit arguments about social norms, political author-
ity, and cultural structures.
Two pointed questions intrude. Of all the doctrinal disputes among
early Christians in previous centuries, why did the council discuss these
particular topics? And why did these topics blow up into a major dispute
at this specific moment? An historical account of the Council of Nicaea
would stress the contingency of the outcome, as notions of both “ortho-
doxy” and “heresy” were in flux. It would also emphasize the larger
context, including the non-Christian and even non-religious circum-
stances. Defining Christianity as one among various strategies for con-
structing meaning and identity allows us to relate the topics discussed at
the Council of Nicaea to contemporary political and social issues.
Emperors had always been grand patrons who were expected to
respond favorably to petitions; now those petitioners included
Christians (see below, section 1). At the same time emperors had been
experimenting with new ways of defining imperial rule and projecting
their authority. Most notably, the recognition of four legitimate
emperors created a tension between the unity of empire and the multi-
plicity of imperial rule. This political tension intersected with doctrinal
disputes. Because the controversy over Arius and his theology had
a limited impact in the western provinces, Constantine’s information
before his victory over Licinius in 324 was restricted. But even though he
knew little about the specific doctrines, he was familiar with the issues.
When Constantine attended the Council of Nicaea, he had already been
 imperial fathers and their sons 21

thinking for years about fathers and sons (section 2), the shape of the
calendar year (section 3), and the divinity of rulers (section 4). These were
as much imperial matters as religious concerns.
Constantine’s personal experiences contributed to the discussions at
the council; at the same time those discussions influenced his ideas
about his family (section 5). After the council he also reformulated his
own autobiography in stories about his earlier victories (section 6). As
a result, the Council of Nicaea was a crucible for the formation of both
a theology of God and a political philosophy of a Christian emperor.

1. emperor licinius, bishop eusebius of nicomedia,

and the controversy over arius
Diocletian became emperor in late 284 after a military coup, and in the
following year he selected Maximian to become his colleague. In 293 the
two senior emperors (known as Augusti) promoted Constantius and
Galerius as junior emperors (known as Caesars) to form a Tetrarchy,
a college of four emperors. In 305 Diocletian and Maximian retired,
while Constantius and Galerius became the Augusti and Severus and
Maximinus the new Caesars.2
But the orderly relationships among the official emperors soon
crumbled. After the death of Constantius in 306, the army in Britain
elevated his son Constantine, and at Rome the praetorian guard hailed
Maxentius as emperor. Maxentius soon summoned his father,
Maximian, out of retirement. Galerius, who was now the preeminent
emperor, recognized Constantine as a Caesar, but in 307 he had Severus
invade Italy to depose Maxentius. After Severus’s failure and execution,
Galerius himself led another futile invasion. He also turned against
Constantine for having accepted promotion as an Augustus from
Maximian. When Diocletian finally emerged from retirement, he sup-
ported Galerius’s attempt to reinstate a proper Tetrarchic hierarchy of
four official emperors. In 308 Licinius was promoted to join Galerius as
another Augustus, and Constantine and Maximinus were the Caesars;
but Diocletian and Maximian, even though sidelined, each retained the
formal title of “elder Augustus.” The outcome in fact created more
confusion, because rather than being revived, the Tetrarchy had become
a Hexarchy. As a contemporary observer concluded, now there were “six
emperors at one time” (Lact., DMP 29.2).3

2
Narrative surveys: Barnes 1981; Bowman 2005; Lenski 2006; Barnes 2011.
3
Digeser 2000, on Lactantius.
22 raymond van dam

Licinius’s primary qualification to become emperor was his friend-

ship with Galerius. After Galerius’s death in 311, Licinius’s jurisdiction
included the Balkan provinces and mainland Greece, while Maximinus,
who had been administering Egypt, Palestine, and Syria already for sev-
eral years, seized Asia Minor. In late 312 Constantine defeated
Maxentius, and in 313 Licinius defeated Maximinus. Although nomin-
ally the two victorious emperors shared imperial rule, in reality they
divided jurisdiction, with Licinius governing an eastern empire that
extended from the Balkans to Egypt. After a short civil war, in 317
Licinius was forced to cede almost all of his European regions to
Constantine. Thereafter his empire included the arc of eastern provinces
from Thrace through Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine to Egypt.
In the western provinces Constantine’s engagement with ecclesias-
tical controversies was limited. Soon after seizing control over Italy and
North Africa in late 312, he responded to appeals from Caecilianus, the
bishop of Carthage, by offering financial support and exemptions for
clerics. In his letters Constantine identified Caecilianus as the leader of
“the catholic church” (Eus., Historia ecclesiastica [HE] 10.6–7). In fact,
Caecilianus’s leadership was not universally acknowledged in North
Africa, and a rival faction associated with Donatus, an alternative bishop
of Carthage, also appealed for the emperor’s patronage. In 314
Constantine may have attended a council of bishops at Arles. The
bishops formed a microcosm of Constantine’s empire at the time, repre-
senting Britain, Gaul, Spain, Italy, Sicily, Africa, and even Dalmatia on
the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. Their decisions covered the ongoing
dispute in North Africa, as well as the consecration of bishops, the
treatment of converts, and the celebration of Easter. Constantine appar-
ently enjoyed himself: “he was eager to attend their debates and to sit
together with the bishops” (Eus., VC 1.44.2).
But the outcome of this council was inconclusive, and Constantine
was dismayed that the partisans of Donatus continued to appeal their
negative verdict. They also attacked the emperor personally. “They
demand judgment for me; I myself anticipate the judgment of Christ”
(Optatus, Appendix 5.32b). Eventually he had to concede his ineffective-
ness. “The reasoning of our policy was not able to subdue the force of that
innate wickedness” (Optatus, Appendix 9.35a). Participation in the
ecclesiastical disputes of North Africa had been a lesson in the limits
of imperial power.4

4
Excellent recent scholarship on the Donatist controversy includes Shaw 2011 and
Miles 2016.
 imperial fathers and their sons 23

In the eastern provinces Licinius campaigned against the Persians

before returning to the Balkan regions. In his jurisdiction he was
immersed in typical administrative and military activities. He fought
battles against the Goths; he consolidated provinces into dioceses
administered by vicars; and he issued legislation about prisoners, mar-
riage, burials, and the collection of taxes (Eus., HE 10.8.11–12, VC 1.55.1).
Through his “sacred command” he authorized repairs for a bridge out-
side Cyzikus.5 As a result, Licinius acquired a favorable reputation.
A famous sophist at Antioch would remember him for invigorating cities
and their councils, while blaming Constantine for their subsequent
decline (Libanius, Orationes 30.6, 49.2).
But after his defeat by Constantine in 324, Licinius’s reputation was
condemned and distorted, twice over. The usual degradation of the loser
in a civil war combined with the vicious infighting among bishops over
theology to transform him into both an illegitimate “tyrant” and
a merciless “persecutor.” Eusebius of Caesarea could barely restrain
himself. In the narrative of his Ecclesiastical History he inserted snide
comments about Licinius’s madness; then he downgraded Licinius as
a “monster.” In his opinion the emperor’s legislation had been an affront
to both Christianity and “the ancient laws of the Romans” (Eus., HE
9.9.12, 10.8–9, VC 1.49.1). This extravagant condemnation has warped
our perspective on Licinius’s interactions with Christianity, as well as
our recognition of Eusebius’s own collaboration with the emperor. In
early 313 Licinius and Constantine had formulated a joint resolution
supporting religious toleration, and as he advanced in his campaign
against Maximinus, Licinius had sent the resolution to provincial gover-
nors. Christians would now serve among Licinius’s courtiers, provincial
administrators, and military officers (Eus., HE 10.8.10, VC 1.52, 54.1).
Because Licinius continued to engage positively with Christianity, it is
likely that Christians in the East petitioned for his favor, just as
Christians in the West appealed for Constantine’s support.
One bishop who certainly maneuvered at Licinius’s court was
Eusebius of Nicomedia. As bishop of Beirut, Eusebius may have met
Licinius during his visit to the eastern frontier; soon afterward
Eusebius transferred to Nicomedia, which would become a primary resi-
dence for Licinius after being pushed out of the Balkan regions. The top
official in Licinius’s administration was Julius Julianus, who had been
serving as his praetorian prefect since at least 315. As prefect Julius
Julianus would have been responsible for appointing the provincial

5
Sünskes 1983.
24 raymond van dam

governors and other high-ranking officials in the imperial administra-

tion, and his connections may also have provided access to the ecclesias-
tical hierarchy of bishops. Eusebius was a relative of Julius Julianus; and
once he assumed his new episcopacy at Nicomedia, he became an adviser
to the emperor’s wife (Socrates [Socr.], Historia ecclesiastica [HE] 1.25;
Sozomen [Soz.], Historia ecclesiastica [HE] 2.27; Philostorgius, Historia
ecclesiastica 1.9) and a confidant of the prefect’s daughter (Athanasius,
Historia Arianorum ad monachos 5.1). Eusebius of Nicomedia, a central
player in the networks of eastern bishops and other churchmen, came
from the same family as Julius Julianus, the top official in Licinius’s
imperial administration.6
Eusebius of Nicomedia championed the priest Arius against Bishop
Alexander of Alexandria. In a statement of his theology Eusebius argued
that there was only one “unbegotten” God and that the “begotten” Son,
who was “created and fashioned,” did not share in his “essence” (Urk.
8).7 After Arius may have visited Eusebius (Epiphanius, Panarion 69.5.2),
Alexander circulated a letter to the eastern bishops in which he criticized
Eusebius as a carpetbagger (for his improper move from Beirut to
Nicomedia) and a self-promoter (Urk. 4b.4–5). Eusebius and his sup-
porters convened a council in Bithynia and afterward requested
Alexander to readmit Arius (Urk. 5).
Another supporter of Arius was bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. In
a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius cited Eusebius of Caesarea as
confirmation for his subordinationist doctrine that “God exists before
the Son without a beginning. [. . .] Before the Son was begotten, created,
determined, or established, he was not. He was not unbegotten” (Urk.
1, 6). Sometime in the early 320s Eusebius of Caesarea travelled to
central Asia Minor, where he preached sermons at Laodicea and Ancyra
(Eus., Contra Marcellum 1.4.42, 45–46). Since the theology of Eusebius of
Caesarea seemed to align with the doctrines of Eusebius of Nicomedia,
he too presumably enjoyed imperial patronage. In fact, passing com-
ments in his historical narratives hinted at Licinius’s support. In
Ecclesiastical History he noted that after Maximinus’s death “letters
from the emperor, honors, and gifts of money arrived for individual
bishops” (Eus., HE 10.2.2). In Life of Constantine he claimed that before
disputes over doctrine had flared up in Egypt, “the people of God flour-
ished, embellished by the actions of the emperor” (Eus., VC 2.61.3). In

6
Van Dam 2018.
7
See Gwynn 2007, 211–18, for an overview of the theology of Eusebius of Nicomedia.
 imperial fathers and their sons 25

the context of Eusebius’s almost exclusive interest in eastern affairs, that

helpful emperor should be Licinius.
In his retrospective denigration of Licinius, however, Eusebius com-
plained that the emperor had issued a law restricting bishops from
meeting in councils (Eus., VC 1.51.1, 2.66). He also accused Licinius of
having conspired against bishops and even allowing some to be executed
by imperial officials (Eus., HE 10.8.14–18). This alleged hostility was not
necessarily proof that Licinius had initiated a general persecution of
Christianity. Instead, as he responded to the disputes among bishops
and clerics by granting or withholding his support, he could not avoid
being seen by some churchmen as an adversary. In the western provinces
Constantine was likewise choosing which petitioners to support, and the
churchmen who failed to receive his patronage, such as the supporters of
Donatus in North Africa, were angry enough to remember his officials as
persecutors, even “executioners” (Council of Carthage in 411, Gesta
3.258). Constantine and Licinius were both typical emperors who had
to make decisions about the distribution of their patronage.
Eusebius also claimed that Licinius was upset because he thought
Christians in the East were praying on behalf of Constantine (Eus., HE
10.8.16). Some eastern churchmen may indeed have been reaching out to
the western emperor, in particular as he gradually became an eastern
emperor too. After Constantine’s jurisdiction expanded to include the
Balkan regions, he started hearing directly about the doctrinal conflicts
in the eastern provinces. Eventually he revealed that one surprising
source of information had been Eusebius of Nicomedia. As the relation-
ship between the emperors deteriorated during the early 320s and war
seemed likely, Eusebius of Nicomedia “secretly sent various envoys to
flatter me on his behalf, and he requested my assistance” (Urk. 27.14).
After defeating Licinius, Constantine visited Nicomedia. The news
about ecclesiastical discord was “stunning,” and he “grieved in his
soul” (Eus., VC 2.61.2, 63). In late 324 the emperor composed a letter
addressed nominally to Arius and Alexander. Although much of the
letter was a vague recommendation for unity, he did mention some
specific details: “I understand that this is the origin of the current dis-
pute” (Eus., VC 2.69.1). The source of this information was perhaps again
Eusebius of Nicomedia, who presumably slanted the account in his
favor. But for the moment Constantine seemed to be trying to learn
from his experiences in the West by not taking sides.
After the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia continued to
support the disgraced Arius (Urk. 31). Constantine concluded that
Eusebius had sent his earlier envoys only as spies, and he banished him
26 raymond van dam

into exile. But the council had already decided in favor of forgiveness, and
one canon extended penance to those who had sinned because of neces-
sity, danger, or other hardships “that happened during the tyranny of
Licinius” (canon 11). Magnanimity was also good pragmatic policy.
Eventually Constantine had one of his half-brothers marry the daughter
of Julius Julianus, Licinius’s prefect, and he allowed Eusebius of
Nicomedia to return. In order to oversee his newly acquired eastern
provinces and their Christian congregations, Constantine acknowledged
that he needed the support of Licinius’s former supporters.
The controversies about the making of theology had hence inter-
sected with two larger political and social trends. One was the potential
emergence of a distinctly Greek Roman empire in the eastern provinces.
After 313 the eastern provinces coalesced into the jurisdiction of only
one emperor, and it was possible to imagine an autonomous eastern
empire. The disputes among bishops were a preview of future conflicts
about the possible orientations of an eastern Roman empire. Egypt had
once been the heartland of the old Ptolemaic kingdom, it produced a large
surplus of grain that supplied Rome, and Alexandria was one of the great
cosmopolitan cities in the eastern Mediterranean. Syria was the major
staging area for campaigns against the Persian empire on the eastern
frontier, and Antioch was another large multicultural city. The Balkans
were the buttress for the long Danube frontier, and recent emperors had
resided at Sirmium and Serdica. Another possible core region centered on
Thrace and Bithynia. In Bithynia, Diocletian had already developed
Nicomedia as an imperial residence, and Eusebius of Nicomedia had
made his see into an important ecclesiastical node. Between Bithynia
and Thrace, the Bosphorus marked the junction between Europe and
Asia, and Licinius had sometimes resided at Byzantium. In 325
Constantine claimed that he had moved the upcoming ecumenical coun-
cil from Ancyra because the weather was better in Nicaea (Urk. 20). As
a result, by meeting at Nicaea the council previewed the future focus of
the Byzantine empire at Constantinople (formerly Byzantium), on the
Bosphorus.8
The other developing trend was uncertainty over the role of
a sympathetic emperor in Christian affairs. The reign of Constantine
may have brought the problem to a boil, but in the eastern provinces it
had been the reign of Licinius that had precipitated the tension. During
their quarrels bishops had certainly appealed for the emperor’s patron-
age, and supporters of Arius such as Eusebius of Nicomedia had

8
Van Dam 2010, 47–80; Grig and Kelly 2012; Van Dam 2014.
 imperial fathers and their sons 27

benefitted from Licinius’s assistance. Although he had had to backpedal

rapidly after Constantine’s victory over Licinius, Eusebius of Nicomedia
would successfully revive his ecclesiastical career, and eventually he
would transfer once more to become bishop of Constantinople. As the
climax of his rehabilitation, in 337 he would baptize Constantine.

2. the politics of imperial fathers and sons

A discourse about fathers and sons, about making and begetting, about
sameness and difference, and about subordination and coordination was
not unique to Christianity, or even to religion in general. The establish-
ment of the Tetrarchy had raised concerns about the rule of concurrent
emperors, their relative ranks and titles, their identification with deities,
and the vagaries of dynastic succession. A Tetrarchy of emperors was
something like a Trinity of divinities: collective but distinct, equal but
hierarchical, somehow divine and human simultaneously. Often it was
difficult to distinguish among the persons of the Tetrarchy, because even
though emperors had different ranks, technically they all shared the
same essence of imperial rule, as well as some names and titles. As
a Christian rhetorician described the harmony of the emperors, they
shared “one intelligence, the same opinion, a similar conviction, and
the same viewpoint” (Lact., DMP 8.1). This political statement
sounded like a theological statement. As a result, Tetrarchic emperors
and Christian theologians were arguing about similar issues at the
same time.9
As long as Diocletian presided as the foremost emperor, differences
within the Tetrarchy were suppressed. In 305 the changeover to a new
regime was remarkably smooth. The two Augusti retired, the two
Caesars became the Augusti, and two new Caesars were selected. The
retirements may have been unprecedented, because imperial rule had
always been a lifetime job, the dual promotions and dual appointments
were different, but the transition seemed to promise stability for imper-
ial succession. Retirements and replacements could become predictable,
and in the future Augusti could retire, Caesars could advance, and new
Caesars would be selected repeatedly.
In fact, the structure of multiple emperors was inherently fragile. In
the early empire dynastic succession from father to son (or sons), as
defined by birth or by adoption, had stabilized imperial rule, while civil
wars had marked the end of imperial families and a transition to new

9
Kolb 2001, on the “theology” of the Tetrarchy.
28 raymond van dam

dynasties. The Tetrarchic system inverted these expectations. Now nat-

ural sons were not considered the expected heirs, and their dynastic
advancement could even trigger civil wars.10
Family dynamics hence raised several important issues about the
nature of imperial rule. One was the selection of new emperors. The
original Tetrarchy had not included relatives by birth. In 285 Diocletian
selected Maximian as his fellow emperor; in 293 they selected as junior
emperors Constantius and Galerius. The common bonds among these
emperors was their military service and their origins in the frontier zones
of the Balkans. This new preference for non-family succession was read-
ily apparent when Diocletian and Maximian retired. Adult sons with
considerable credentials were available for advancement. Constantine,
Constantius’s oldest son, was in his early thirties and had military
experience; Maxentius, Maximian’s son, was in his early twenties, and
he was already married to Galerius’s daughter. But neither was selected
for promotion. New emperors were to be made, not begotten.
As a result, one oddity is the appearance of imperial sons who did not
become emperors. Some sons died or were killed while still young. But in
305 Constantine was literally pushed aside so that Galerius could
instead introduce Maximinus as a new emperor (Lact., DMP 19.4), and
at the same time Maxentius was living outside Rome as a private citizen
with the rank of a senator. In 306 when Constantius died, his troops were
thought to have rejected his “legitimate sons” in favor of Constantine,
his “first son” (Zosimus, Historia nova 2.9.1; Panegyrici latini [Paneg.
lat.] 6(7).4.2). Constantine’s half-brothers were apparently the first
imperial sons to reach adulthood but never become emperors.11
A second issue was the ideological overlay of family relationships on
this assortment of unrelated emperors. Diocletian and Maximian repre-
sented themselves as “brothers” and the junior emperors as “sons.”
Constantius and Galerius were already the sons-in-law of Maximian
and Diocletian respectively, and the senior emperors furthermore
adopted the junior emperors. The imposition of these contrived relation-
ships was so powerful that they might even affect thinking about succes-
sion. When Galerius started scheming about the future, he hoped
eventually to promote Licinius directly as a fellow senior emperor. In
that case he could avoid having to call his friend “son” and instead
designate him “brother” (Lact., DMP 20.3).

10
Hekster 2015, on imperial succession.
11
Van Dam 2018; excellent commentaries on the Latin panegyrics in Nixon and Rodgers
1994.
 imperial fathers and their sons 29

Fraternal harmony highlighted the equality between the senior

emperors, while paternal hierarchy reinforced the differences in rank
and authority between Augusti and Caesars. Not surprisingly, the junior
emperors complained. Already as a Caesar, Galerius had been especially
disruptive: he “never sang in harmony with the melody of four notes”
(Julian, Caesares 315c). Diocletian once forced his impertinent junior
emperor, while still dressed in purple, to march beside his carriage as
penance for a defeat (Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae 14.11.10). This
humiliation had little effect, because on a triumphal arch at
Thessalonica Galerius would hype his own victories over the Persians.
As an Augustus, Galerius faced grumbling from the junior emperor
Maximinus, who was upset at being overlooked for promotion.
“Galerius begged him to show respect for his age and his grey hair”
(Lact., DMP 32.2). Then he agreed to bestow a new formal title on the
Caesars: “sons of the Augusti.”12 Constantine, the other Caesar who was
already using the title of Augustus, simply ignored this new title, and
soon Maximinus’s troops hailed him as an Augustus too. Equality
trumped hierarchy, and Galerius finally had to agree that all four
emperors would be Augusti. Overnight “sons” became “brothers.”
The final issue was the role of fathers. Arrogance and annoyance
were not the only challenges to the idea of a Tetrarchy. Despite the
ideology, emperors were always scheming to promote their own sons.
Galerius was already dreaming about advancing his own son when the
boy was only nine years old (Lact., DMP 20.4). Constantius requested
that Constantine, a longtime officer at Diocletian’s court, return to his
side; when Constantius died in York, his troops hailed his son as
emperor. Maximian returned from retirement to support his son,
Maxentius, as emperor at Rome; in turn, Maxentius held consulships
with his young son.
As long as Diocletian had been the dominant emperor, no natural
sons were willingly invited to join the Tetrarchy. Although Constantine
may have compelled recognition from Galerius through his military
coup, Galerius declined to acknowledge Maxentius: “he could not
make a third Caesar” (Lact., DMP 26.4). In one respect the refusal of
hereditary succession reflected a peculiar circumstance, because
Diocletian was the only Tetrarchic emperor who did not have a son.
But the pull of hereditary succession remained undeniable. Once
Constantine and Licinius had eliminated their rivals, they soon

12
Stefan 2005a; Stefan 2005b.
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
one stout Tory murmured. "Seems like the model of a head clerk at
a West End draper's," observed another. Certainly there was nothing
of the Orson about this well-dressed, well-groomed representative of
the Birmingham democracy. Mr. Chamberlain's speech made a
distinct impression on the House. It was admirably delivered, in
quietly modulated tones, the clear, penetrating voice never rising to
the level of declamation, but never failing to reach the ear of every
listener. The political opinions which it expressed were such as every
one might have expected to come from so resolute a democrat, but
the quiet, self-possessed delivery greatly astonished those who had
expected to see and hear a mob orator. Mr. Chamberlain's position in
the House was assured after that first speech. Even among the
Tories everybody felt satisfied that the new man was a man of great
ability, gifted with a remarkable capacity for maintaining his views
with ingenious and plausible argument, a man who could hold his
own in debate with the best, and for whom the clamors of a host of
political opponents could have no terrors.

I may say at once that Mr. Chamberlain has, ever since that
time, proved himself to be one of the ablest debaters in the House
of Commons. He is not and never could be an orator in the higher
sense, for he wants altogether that gift of imagination necessary to
the composition of an orator, and he has not the culture and the
command of ready illustration which sometimes lift men who are not
born orators above the mere debater's highest level. But he has
unfailing readiness, a wide knowledge of public affairs, a keen eye
for all the weak points of an opponent's case, and a flow of clear
and easy language which never fails to give expression, at once full
and precise, to all that is in his mind. He was soon recognized, even
by his extreme political opponents, as one of the ablest men in the
House of Commons, and it seemed plain to every one that, when the
chance came for the formation of a Liberal Ministry, the country then
being in the hands of a Tory Government, Mr. Chamberlain would
beyond question find a place on the Treasury Bench.
 Meanwhile Mr. Chamberlain's democratic views seemed to have
undergone no modification. He was as unsparing as ever in his
denunciation of the aristocracy and the privileged classes, and he
was especially severe upon the great landowners, and used to
propound schemes for buying them out by the State and converting
their land into national property. His closest ally and associate in
Parliamentary politics was Sir Charles Dilke, who had entered the
House of Commons some years before Mr. Chamberlain, and who
was then, as he is now, an advanced and determined Radical. Sir
Charles Dilke, in fact, was at that time supposed to be something
very like a Republican, at least in theory, and he had been exciting
great commotion in several parts of the country by his outspoken
complaints about the vast sums of money voted every year for the
Royal Civil List. It was but natural that Sir Charles Dilke and Mr.
Chamberlain should become close associates, and there was a
general conviction that the more advanced section of the Liberal
party was destined to take the command in Liberal politics.

Outside the range of strictly English politics there was a question

arising which threatened to make a new division in the Liberal party.
This was the question of Home Rule for Ireland as it presented itself
under the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell. For years the
subject of Home Rule had been the occasion, under the leadership
of Mr. Butt, of nothing more formidable to the House of Commons
than an annual debate and division. Once in every session Mr. Butt
brought forward a motion calling for a measure of Home Rule for
Ireland, and, after some eloquent speeches made in favor of the
motion by Irish members, a few speeches were delivered on the
other side by the opponents of Home Rule, Liberals as well as Tories,
and then some leading member of the Government went through
the form of explaining why the motion could not be accepted. A
division was taken, and Mr. Butt's motion was found to have the
support of the very small Irish Nationalist party, as it then was, and
perhaps half a dozen English or Scotch Radicals; and the whole
House of Commons, except for these, declared against Home Rule.
About the time, however, of Mr. Chamberlain's entrance on the field
of politics a great change had taken place in the conditions of the
Home Rule question. Charles Stewart Parnell had become in fact,
although not yet in name, the leader of the Irish National party, and
Parnell's tactics were very different indeed from those of his nominal
leader, Mr. Butt. Butt was a man who had great reverence for old
constitutional forms and for the traditions and ways of the House of
Commons, and he had faith in the power of mere argument to bring
the House some time or other to see the justice of his cause. Parnell
was convinced that there was only one way of compelling the House
of Commons to pay any serious attention to the Irish demand, and
that was by making it clear to the Government and the House that
until they had turned their full attention to the Irish national claims,
they should not be allowed to turn their attention to any other
business whatever. Therefore he introduced that policy of
obstruction which has since become historical, and which for a time
literally convulsed the House of Commons. Now, I am not going
again into the oft-told tale of Home Rule and the obstruction policy,
and I touch upon the subject here only because of its direct
connection with the career of Mr. Chamberlain. Sir Charles Dilke and
Mr. Chamberlain supported Mr. Parnell in most of his assaults upon
the Tory Government. It was Parnell's policy to bring forward some
motion, during the discussion of the estimates for the army and navy
or for the civil service, which should raise some great and important
question of controversy connected only in a technical sense with the
subject formally before the House, and thus to raise a prolonged
debate which had the effect of postponing to an indefinite time the
regular movement of business. Thus he succeeded in stopping all
the regular work of the House until the particular motion in which he
was concerned had been fully discussed and finally settled, one way
or the other. It was by action of this kind that he succeeded in
prevailing upon the House of Commons to condemn the barbarous
system of flogging in the army and the navy, and finally to obtain its
abolition. In this latter course he was warmly supported by Mr.
Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke, and by many other Liberal
members.
 But it was not only in obstructive motions which concerned the
common interests of the country that Parnell obtained the support of
Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Chamberlain. These two men boldly and
vigorously maintained him in his policy of obstruction when it only
professed to concern itself with Irish national questions. They
identified themselves so thoroughly with his Irish policy that it
became a familiar joke in the House of Commons to describe Dilke
and Chamberlain as the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General
of the Home Rule party. I was then a member of the House, and had
been elected Vice-President of the Irish party, Parnell being, of
course, the President. Naturally, I was brought closely into
association with Mr. Chamberlain, and I had for many years been a
personal friend of Sir Charles Dilke. Again and again I heard Mr.
Chamberlain express his entire approval of the obstructive policy
adopted by Parnell, and declare that that was the only way by which
Parnell could compel the House of Commons to give a hearing to the
Irish claims. Mr. Chamberlain, indeed, expressed, on more than one
occasion, in speeches delivered during a debate in the House, just
the same opinion as to Parnell's course which I had heard him utter
in private conversation. In one of these speeches I remember well
his generous declaration that he was sorry he had not had an
opportunity of expressing that opinion to the House of Commons
long before. Now, of course, I always thought, and still think, that all
this was much to the credit of Mr. Chamberlain's political intelligence,
courage, and manly feeling, and I regarded him as one of the truest
English friends the Home Rule cause had ever made. I had the
opportunity, on more than one occasion, of hearing Dilke and
Chamberlain define their respective positions on the subject of Home
Rule. Dilke regarded Home Rule as an essential part of a federal
system, which he believed to be absolutely necessary to the safety,
strength, and prosperity of the British Empire. He would have made
it a Federal system, by virtue of which each member of the Imperial
organization governed its own domestic affairs in its own way, while
the common wishes and interests of the Empire were represented,
discussed, and arranged in a central Imperial Parliament. Therefore,
even if the Irish people had not been themselves awakened to the
necessity for a Home Rule Legislature in Ireland, Dilke would have
been in favor of urging on them the advantages of such an
arrangement. This, in point of fact, is the system which has made
the Canadian and the Australasian provinces what they are at this
day, contented, loyal, and prosperous members of the Imperial
system. Chamberlain was not so convinced an advocate of the
general system of Home Rule as Dilke, but he was always emphatic
in his declarations that, if the large majority of the Irish people
desired Home Rule, their desire should be granted to them by the
Imperial Parliament.

When I first entered the House of Commons, the Conservative

party was in office. About a year after, the general election of 1880
came on, almost in the ordinary course of events, and the result of
the appeal to the country was that the Liberals came back to power
with a large majority. Mr. Gladstone was at the head of the Liberal
party, and he became Prime Minister. Everybody assumed that two
such prominent Radicals as Dilke and Chamberlain could not be
overlooked by the new Prime Minister in his arrangements to form
an administration. I think I am entitled to say, as a positive fact, that
Dilke and Chamberlain entered into an understanding between
themselves that unless one at least of them was offered a place in
the Cabinet, neither would accept office of any kind. Of course when
a new Government is in process of formation all these arrangements
are matters of private discussion and negotiation with the men at
the head of affairs; and the result of interchange of ideas in this
instance was that Chamberlain became President of the Board of
Trade, with a seat in the Cabinet, and Dilke accepted the office of
Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, without a place in the inner
Ministerial circle. This was done, not only with Dilke's cordial
consent, but at his express wish, for it was his strong desire that the
higher place in the administration should be given to his friend.

Now, at this time Mr. Gladstone was not a convinced Home Ruler.
I know that the importance of the question was entering his mind
and was absorbing much of his attention. I know that he was
earnestly considering the subject, and that his mind was open to
conviction; but I know also that he was not yet convinced.
Chamberlain, therefore, would apparently have had nothing to gain
if he merely desired to conciliate the favor of his leader by still
putting himself forward as the friend and the ally of the Home Rule
party. But he continued, when in office, to be just as openly our
friend as he had been in the days when he was only an ordinary
member of the House of Commons. There were times when, owing
to the policy of coercion pursued in Ireland by the then Chief
Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, the relations between the Liberal
Government and the Home Rule party were severely strained. We
did battle many a time as fiercely against Mr. Gladstone's
Government as ever we had done against the Government of his
Tory predecessor. Yet Mr. Chamberlain always remained our friend
and our adviser, always stood by us whenever he could fairly be
expected to do so in public, and always received our confidences in
private. When Mr. Parnell and other members of our party were
thrown into Dublin prison, Mr. Chamberlain did his best to obtain
justice and fair treatment for them and for the Home Rule cause and
for the Irish people.

Many American readers will probably have a recollection of what

was called the Kilmainham Treaty—the "Treaty" being an
arrangement which it was thought might be honorably agreed upon
between Mr. Gladstone and the leaders of the Irish party, and by
virtue of which an improved system of land-tenure legislation was to
be given to Ireland, on the one hand, and every effort was to be
made to restore peace to Ireland on the other. I do not intend to go
into this old story at any length, my only object being to record the
fact that the whole arrangements were conducted between Mr.
Chamberlain and Mr. Parnell, and that Chamberlain was still
understood to be the friend of Ireland and of Home Rule. These
negotiations led to the resignation of office by the late Mr. William
Edward Forster, Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland;
and then came the important question, Who was likely to be put in
Mr. Forster's place? I believe that, as a matter of fact, the place was
offered, in the first instance, to Sir Charles Dilke, but was declined
by him on the ground that he was not also offered a seat in the
Cabinet, and Dilke was convinced that unless he had a seat in the
Cabinet he could have no chance of pressing successfully on the
Government his policy of Home Rule for Ireland.

Mr. Chamberlain then had reason to believe that the office would
be tendered to him, and he was willing to accept it and to do the
best he could. I know that he believed that the place was likely to be
offered to him and that he was ready to undertake its duties, for he
took the very frank and straightforward course of holding a
conference with certain Irish Nationalist members to whom he made
known his views on the subject. The Irish members whom he
consulted understood clearly from him that if he went to Ireland in
the capacity of Chief Secretary he would go as a Home Ruler and
would expect their co-operation and their assistance. There was no
secret about this conference. It was held within the precincts of the
House of Commons, and Mr. Chamberlain's action in suggesting and
conducting it was entirely becoming and proper under the
conditions. For some reason or other, which I at least have never
heard satisfactorily explained, the office of Chief Secretary was
given, after all, to the late Lord Frederick Cavendish. Then followed
the terrible tragedy of the Phoenix Park, Dublin, when Lord Frederick
and Mr. Thomas Burke, his official subordinate, were murdered in
the open day by a gang of assassins. When the news of this
appalling deed reached London, Mr. Parnell and I went at once, and
as a matter of course, to consult with Sir Charles Dilke and Mr.
Chamberlain as to the steps which ought to be taken in order to
vindicate the Irish people from any charge of sympathy with so
wanton and so atrocious a crime. We saw both Dilke and
Chamberlain and consulted with them, and I can well remember
being greatly impressed by the firmness with which Mr. Chamberlain
declared that nothing which had happened would prevent him from
accepting the office of Chief Secretary in Ireland if the opportunity
were offered to him. I go into all this detail with the object of
making it clear to the reader that, up to this time, Mr. Chamberlain
had the full confidence of the Irish Nationalist party and was
understood by them to be in thorough sympathy with them as to
Ireland's demand for Home Rule.

Mr. Chamberlain did not, however, become Irish Secretary, but

retained his position as President of the Board of Trade, and many
foreign troubles began in Egypt and other parts of the world which
diverted the attention of Parliament and the public for a while from
questions of purely domestic policy. Mr. Gladstone, however,
succeeded in carrying through Parliament a sort of new reform bill
which reconstructed the constituencies, expanded the electorate,
and, in fact, set up in the three countries something approaching
nearly to the old Chartist idea of equal electoral division and
universal suffrage. The foreign troubles, however, were very serious,
the Government lost its popularity, and at last was defeated on one
of its financial proposals and resigned office. The Tories came into
power for a short time. Mr. Chamberlain stumped the country in his
old familiar capacity as a Radical politician of the extreme school,
and he started a scheme of policy which was commonly described
afterwards as the unauthorized programme, in which he advocated,
among other bold reforms, a peasant proprietary throughout the
country by the compulsory purchase of land, the effect of which
would be to endow every deserving peasant with at least three acres
and a cow. The Tories were not able to do anything in office, owing
to the combined attacks made upon them by the Radicals and the
Irish Home Rulers, and in 1886 another dissolution of Parliament
took place and a general election came on. The effect of the latest
reform measure introduced by Mr. Gladstone now told irresistibly in
Mr. Gladstone's favor, and the newly arranged constituencies sent
him back into office and into power. Mr. Chamberlain once again
joined Mr. Gladstone's Government, and became President of the
Local Government Board.

Then comes a sudden change in the story. The extension of the

suffrage gave, for the first time, a large voting power into the hands
of the majority of the Irish people, for in Ireland up to that date the
right to vote had been enjoyed only by the landlord class and the
well-to-do middle class; and the result of the new franchise was that
Ireland sent into Parliament an overwhelming number of Home Rule
Representatives to follow the leadership of Parnell. Gladstone then
became thoroughly satisfied that the vast majority of the Irish
people were in favor of Home Rule, and he determined to introduce
a measure which should give to Ireland a separate domestic
Parliament. Thereupon Mr. Chamberlain suddenly announced that he
could not support such a measure of Home Rule, and it presently
came out that he could not support any measure of Home Rule. He
resigned his place in Mr. Gladstone's Government, and he became
from that time not only an opponent of Home Rule but a proclaimed
Conservative and anti-Radical. When a Tory Government was
formed, after the defeat of Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule measure,
Mr. Chamberlain became a member of the Tory Government, and he
is one of the leading members of a Tory Government at this day.

Now, it is for this reason, I suppose, that the unfriendly critic, of

whom I have already spoken more than once, thought himself
justified in describing Mr. Chamberlain as the Rabagas of English
political life. It is, indeed, hard for any of us to understand the
meaning of Mr. Chamberlain's sudden change. At the opening of
1886 he was, what he had been during all his previous political life,
a flaming democrat and Radical. In the early months of 1886 he was
a flaming Tory and anti-Radical. During several years of frequent
association with him in the House of Commons I had always known
him as an advocate of Home Rule for Ireland, and all of a sudden he
exhibited himself as an uncompromising opponent of Home Rule.
Many English Liberal members objected to some of the provisions of
Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill, but when these objections were
removed in Mr. Gladstone's second Home Rule Bill they returned at
once to their places under his leadership. But Mr. Chamberlain would
have nothing to do with any manner of Home Rule measure, and
when he visited the province of Ulster in the north of Ireland he
delighted all the Ulster Orangemen by the fervor of his speeches
against Home Rule. Moreover, it may fairly be asked why an English
Radical and democrat of extreme views must needs become an
advocate of Toryism all along the line simply because he has ceased
to be in favor of Home Rule for Ireland. These are questions which I,
at least, cannot pretend to answer.

Of course we have in history many instances of conversions as

sudden and as complete, about the absolute sincerity of which even
the worldly and cynical critic has never ventured a doubt. There was
the conversion of Constantine the Great, and there was the sudden
change brought about in the feelings and the life of Ignatius of
Loyola. But then somehow Mr. Chamberlain does not seem to have
impressed on his contemporaries, either before or after his great
change, the idea that he was a man cast exactly in the mold of a
Constantine or an Ignatius. Only of late years has he been dubbed
with the familiar nickname of "Pushful Joe," but he was always set
down as a man of personal ambition, determined to make his way
well on in the world. We had all made up our minds, somehow, that
he would be content to push his fortunes on that side of the political
field to which, up to that time, he had proclaimed himself to belong,
and it never occurred to us to think of him as the associate of Tory
dukes, as a leading member of a Tory Government, and as the
champion of Tory principles. Men have in all ages changed their
political faith without exciting the world's wonder. Mr. Gladstone
began as a Tory, and grew by slow degrees into a Radical. Two or
three public men in our own days who began as moderate Liberals
have gradually turned into moderate Tories. But Mr. Chamberlain's
conversion was not like any of these. It was accomplished with a
suddenness that seemed to belong to the days when miracles were
yet worked upon the earth. Mr. Chamberlain may well feel proud in
the consciousness that the close attention of the political world will
follow with eager curiosity his further career.
Photograph copyright by Elliott & Fry

HENRY LABOUCHERE
 HENRY LABOUCHERE

Henry Labouchere is the most amusing speaker in the House of

Commons. Eclipse is first and there is no second—to adopt the
words once used by Lord Macaulay—at least, if there be a second, I
do not feel myself qualified for the task of designating him. It is
hardly necessary to say that whenever Labouchere rises in the
House of Commons—and he rises very often in the course of a
session—he is sure of an immediate hearing. He seldom addresses
himself to any subject with the outward appearance of seriousness.
He always puts his argument in jesting form; sends a shower of
sparkling words over the most solemn controversy; puts on the
manner of one who has plunged into the debate only for the mere
fun of the thing; and brings his display to an end just at the time
when the House hopes that he is only beginning to exert himself for
its amusement. I do not know that he has ever made what could be
called a long speech, and I think I may fairly assume that he has
never made a speech which his audience would not have wished to
be a little longer.

Now, I must say at once that it would be the most complete

misappreciation of Henry Labouchere's character and purpose to
regard him as a mere jester, or even a mere humorist endowed with
the faculty of uttering spontaneous witticisms. Labouchere is very
much in earnest even when he makes a joke, and his sharpest
cynicism is inspired by a love of justice and a desire to champion the
cause of what he believes to be the right. I heard him once make a
speech in the House of Commons on behalf of some suffering class
or cause, and when coming to a close he suddenly said: "I may be
told that this is a sentimental view of the case; but, Mr. Speaker, I
am a man of sentiment." The House broke into a perfect chorus of
laughter at the idea thus presented of Labouchere as a man of
sentiment. Probably many, or most, of his listeners thought it was
only Labouchere's fun, and merely another illustration of his love for
droll paradox. I have no doubt that Labouchere knew very well in
advance what sort of reception was likely to be given to his
description of himself, and that he heartily enjoyed the effect it
produced. But, all the same, there was a good deal of truth in the
description. I have always regarded Labouchere as a man of
intensely strong opinions, whose peculiar humor it is to maintain
these opinions by sarcasm and witticism and seeming paradox.

Certainly no public man in England has given clearer evidence of

his sincerity and disinterestedness in any cause that he advocates
than Labouchere has done again and again. I remember hearing it
said many years ago in New York of my old friend Horace Greeley
that whereas some other editors of great newspapers backed up
their money with their opinions, Greeley backed up his opinions with
his money. The meaning, of course, was that while some editors
shaped their opinions in order to make their journals profitable,
Horace Greeley was ready to sacrifice his money for the sake of
maintaining the newspaper which expressed his sincere convictions.
Something of the same kind might fairly be said of Henry
Labouchere. He is the proprietor and editor of the weekly newspaper
"Truth," in which he expresses his own opinions without the slightest
regard for the commercial interests of the paper, or, indeed, for the
political interests of the party which he usually supports in the House
of Commons. I believe that, as a matter of fact, "Truth" is a most
successful enterprise, even as a commercial speculation, for
everybody wants to know what it is likely to say on this or that new
and exciting question, and nobody can tell in advance what view
Labouchere's organ may be likely to take. Labouchere has, however,
given proof many times that he keeps up his newspaper as the
organ of his individual opinions, and not merely as a means of
making money or sustaining the interests of a political party. He has
again and again hunted out and hunted down evil systems of various
kinds, shams and quacks of many orders, abuses affecting large
masses of the poor and the lowly, and has rendered himself liable to
all manner of legal actions for the recovery of damages. If, because
of some technical or other failure in his defense to one of those legal
actions, Labouchere is cast in heavy damages, he pays the amount,
makes a jest or two about it, and goes to work at the collection of
better evidence and at the hunting out of other shams with as
cheery a countenance as if nothing particular had happened.
Fortunately for himself, and, I think, also very fortunately for the
public in general, Labouchere is personally a rich man, and is able to
meet without inconvenience any loss which may be brought upon
him now and then by his resolute endeavors to expose shams.

Labouchere spent ten years of his earlier manhood in the

diplomatic service, and was attaché at various foreign courts and at
Washington. He had always a turn for active political life, and
entered the House of Commons in 1865, and in 1880 was elected as
one of the representatives for the constituency of Northampton. His
colleague at that time in the representation of the constituency was
the once famous Charles Bradlaugh. It would not be easy to find a
greater contrast in appearance and manners, in education and social
bringing up, than that presented by the two representatives of
Northampton. Labouchere is a man of barely medium stature;
Bradlaugh's proportions approached almost to the gigantic. One
could not talk for five minutes with Labouchere and fail to know,
even if they had never met before, that Labouchere was a man born
and trained to the ways of what is called good society; Bradlaugh
was evidently a child of the people, who had led a hard and
roughening life, and had had to make his way by sheer toil and
unceasing exertion. Bradlaugh as a public speaker was powerful and
commanding in his peculiar style—the style of the workingman's
platform and of the open-air meetings in Hyde Park. He had
tremendous lungs, a voice of surprising power and volume, and his
speeches were all attuned to the tone of open-air declamation. Most
observers, even among those who thoroughly recognized his great
intellectual power and his command of language, would have taken
it for granted beforehand that he never could suit himself to the
atmosphere of the House of Commons. Labouchere's speeches, even
when delivered to a large public meeting, were pitched in a
conversational key, and he never attempted a declamatory flight. His
speeches within the House of Commons and outside it always
sparkled with droll and humorous illustrations, and when he was
most in earnest he seemed to be making a joke of the whole
business. Bradlaugh was always terribly in earnest, and seemed as if
he were determined to bear down all opposition by the power of his
arguments and the volume of his voice. In Labouchere you always
found the man accustomed to the polished ways of diplomatic
circles; in Bradlaugh one saw the typical champion of the oppressed
working class. Labouchere comes, as his name would suggest, from
a French Huguenot family of old standing; Bradlaugh was thoroughly
British in style even when he advocated opinions utterly opposed to
those of the average Briton.

The House of Commons is, on the whole, a fair-minded

assembly, and even those who were most uncompromising in their
hostility to some of Bradlaugh's views came soon to recognize that
by his election to Parliament the House had obtained a new and
powerful debater. Both men soon won recognition from the House
for their very different characteristics as debaters, and at one time I
think that the college-bred country gentlemen of the Tory ranks
were inclined, on the whole, to find more fault with Labouchere than
with Bradlaugh. They seemed willing to make allowances for
Bradlaugh which they would not make for his colleague in the
representation of Northampton. One can imagine their reasoning out
the matter somewhat in this way: This man Bradlaugh comes from
the working class, is not in any sense belonging to our order, and we
must take all that into account; while this other man, Labouchere, is
of our own class, has had his education at Eton, has been trained
among diplomatists in foreign courts, is in fact a gentleman, and yet
is constantly proclaiming his hostility to all the established
institutions of his native country. Even the Tory country gentlemen,
however, found it impossible wholly to resist the wit, the sarcasms,
and the droll humors of Labouchere, and whenever he spoke in the
House he was sure to have attentive listeners on all the rows of
benches.

Bradlaugh's actual Parliamentary career did not last very long.

When he was first elected for Northampton, he refused to take the
oath of allegiance, on the ground that he could not truthfully make
that appeal to the higher power with which the oath concludes. He
was willing to make an affirmation, but the majority of the House
would not accept the compromise. A considerable period of struggle
intervened. The seat was declared to be vacant, but Mr. Bradlaugh
was promptly re-elected by the constituents of Northampton, and
then there set in a dispute between the House and the constituency
something like that which, in the days of Daniel O'Connell, ended in
Catholic emancipation. Bradlaugh was enabled to enter the House in
1886, and he made himself very conspicuous in debate. His manners
were remarkably courteous, and he became popular after a while
even among those who held his political and religious opinions in the
utmost abhorrence. His career was closed in 1891 by death.

I can well remember my first meeting with Henry Labouchere. It

was at a dinner party given by my friend Sir John R. Robinson, then
and until quite lately manager of the London "Daily News." The
dinner was given at the Reform Club, and took place, I think, some
time before Labouchere's election for Northampton. I had never
seen Labouchere before that time, and had somehow failed to learn
his name before we sat down to dinner. We were not a large party,
and the conversation was general. I was soon impressed by the vivid
and unstrained humor of Labouchere's talk and by the peculiarity of
his manner. He spoke his sentences in quiet, slow, and even languid
tones; there was nothing whatever of the "agreeable rattle" in his
demeanor; he had no appearance of any determination to be
amusing, or even consciousness of any power to amuse. He always
spoke without effort and with the air of one who would just as soon
have remained silent if he did not happen to have something to say,
and whatever he did say in his languorous tones was sure to hold
the attention and to delight the humorous faculties of every listener.
My curiosity was quickly aroused and promptly satisfied as to the
identity of this delightful talker, and thus began my acquaintanceship
with Labouchere, which has lasted ever since, and is, I hope, likely
to last for some time longer. Labouchere is a wonderful teller of
stories drawn from his various experiences in many parts of the
world, and, unlike most other story-tellers, he is never heard to
repeat an anecdote, unless when he was especially invited to do so
for the benefit of some one who had not had an opportunity of
hearing it before. If he were only a teller of good stories and an
utterer of witty sayings, he would well deserve a place in the social
history of England during our times; but Labouchere's skill as a
talker is one of his least considerable claims upon public attention.
Nature endowed Labouchere with what might be called a fighting
spirit, and I believe that whenever he sees any particular cause or
body of men apparently put under conditions of disadvantage, his
first instinctive inclination is to make himself its advocate, so far at
least as to insist that the cause or the men must have a fair hearing.

In the House of Commons it could not have happened very often

that Henry Labouchere was found on the side of the strong
battalions. I know that during the heaviest and the fiercest struggles
of the Irish National party against coercive laws and in favor of
Ireland's demand for Home Rule, Henry Labouchere was always
found voting with us in the division lobby. Some of those days were
very dark indeed. Before Gladstone had become converted to the
principle of Home Rule for Ireland, and before the later changes in
the system of Parliamentary representation had given an extended
popular suffrage to the Irish constituencies, the number of Irish
representatives who followed the leadership of Charles Stewart
Parnell was for many sessions not more than seven or eight. There
were some English members who always voted with us, and
conspicuous and constant among these were Sir Wilfred Lawson and
Henry Labouchere. Unquestionably neither Labouchere nor Lawson
had anything whatever to gain in Parliamentary or worldly sense by
identifying himself with our efforts in the House of Commons. As
soon as Ireland got her fair share of the popular franchise, Parnell
was followed by some eighty or ninety members out of the hundred
and three who constitute the whole Irish representation. This was
the very fact which first brought Gladstone, as I heard from his own
lips, to see that the demand of Ireland was in every sense a
thoroughly national demand, and that the whole principle of the
British constitution claimed for it the consideration of genuine
statesmanship. Labouchere had identified himself with the national
cause in the days before that cause had yet found anything like
representation in the House of Commons. Through all his political
career he remained faithful to that principle of nationality, and in the
time—I hope not distant—when the Irish claim for Home Rule is
recognized and accepted by the British Parliament, Ireland is not
likely to forget that Henry Labouchere was one of the very few
English members who recognized and championed her claim in the
hour when almost every man's hand was against it.

Perhaps the inborn spirit of adventure which makes itself so

apparent in Labouchere's temperament and career may have had
something to do with his championship of the oppressed. I do not
say this with any intention to disparage Labouchere's genuine desire
to uphold what he believes to be the right, but only to illustrate the
peculiarities of his nature. Certainly his love of adventure has made
itself conspicuous and impressive at many stages of his varied
career. There is a legend to the effect that Labouchere joined at one
time the company of a traveling circus in the United States for the
novelty and amusement of the enterprise. I do not know whether
there is any truth in this story, but I should certainly be quite
prepared to believe it on anything like authentic evidence. The
adventure would seem quite in keeping with the temper of the man.
Most of us know what happened when the Germans were besieging
Paris during the war of 1870. It suddenly occurred to Labouchere
that it would be a most interesting chapter in a man's life if he were
to spend the winter in the besieged city. No sooner said, or thought,
than done. Labouchere was then one of the proprietors of the
London "Daily News," and he announced his determination to
undertake the task of representing that journal in Paris as long as
the siege should last. Of course he obtained full authority for the
purpose, and he contrived to make his way into Paris, and when
there he relieved the regular correspondent of the "Daily News" from
his wearisome and perilous work by sending him off, in a balloon, I
believe, to Tours, where he was out of the range of the German
forces, and could continue his daily survey of events in general.
Then Labouchere set himself down to enjoy all the hardships of the
siege, to live on the flesh of horse and donkey and even cat and rat,
to endure the setting in of utter darkness when once the sun had
gone down, and to chronicle a daily account of his strange
experiences. This was accomplished in his "Diary of a Besieged
Resident," which appeared from day to day in the columns of the
"Daily News," and was afterwards published as a volume, and a
most entertaining, humorous, realistic, and delightful volume it
made. The very difficulties of its transmission by means of balloons
and pigeons and other such floating or flying agencies must have
been a constant source of amusement and excitement to the
adventurous besieged resident.

Labouchere has always been in the habit of seeking excitement

by enterprises on the Stock Exchange. I do not believe that these
ventures have been made with the commonplace desire to make
money, but I can quite understand that they are prompted by the
very same desire for new experiences which prompted the residence
in besieged Paris. I remember meeting Labouchere one day many
years ago in a West End London street, and being told by him that
he had just incurred a very heavy loss by one of his financial
ventures on the Stock Exchange. He told me in his usual tones of
almost apathetic languor the amount of his loss, and it seemed to
my modest experiences in money affairs to be a positive fortune
sacrificed. He was smiling blandly while recounting his adventure,
and I could not help asking him how he had felt when the loss was
first made known to him. "Well," he replied, in the same good-
humored tone, "it was an experience, like another." That, I think, is
a fair illustration of Labouchere's governing mood. The great thing
was to get a new sensation. At one time Labouchere became the
founder and the owner of a new theater in London, and he took part
in many a newspaper enterprise. He was, as I have said, for a long
time one of the proprietors of the "Daily News," and he entered into
that proprietorship at the very time when the "Daily News" was
making itself most unpopular in capitalist circles and in what is
known as society, by its resolute and manly adherence to the side of
the Federal States during the great American Civil War. It suited
Labouchere's pluck and temper to join in such an undertaking at the
time when the odds seemed all against it; and it is only fair to say
that I am sure no love for a new sensation could induce Labouchere
to take up any cause which he did not believe to be the cause of
right.

Labouchere was one of those who went in with the late Edmund
Yates in founding "The World," then quite a new venture as a society
journal. Labouchere, however, did not long remain a sharer in this
enterprise. Yates was the editor of the paper, and Yates went in
altogether for satirical or at least amusing pictures of West End life,
and did not care anything about politics and the struggles of this or
that political movement. Labouchere could not settle down to any
interest in a newspaper which dealt only with changes of fashion
and the whimsicalities of social life. His close interest in political
questions filled him with the resolve to start a journal which, while
dealing with the personages and the ways of society, should also be
the organ of his own views on graver subjects. He therefore
withdrew from all concern in Edmund Yates's "World" and started his
own weekly newspaper, "Truth," which has since enjoyed a life of
vigor and success. There is room enough for both papers apparently.
The "World" has not lost its circle of readers, while "Truth" is beyond
question a great power in political and financial as well as in social
movements.

One of Labouchere's special delights is to expose in "Truth"

some successful adventurer in pretentious financial schemes, some
hypocritical projector of sham philanthropic institutions, some
charlatan with whom, because of his temporary influence and
success, most other people are unwilling to try conclusions. Such an
impostor is just the sort of man whom Labouchere is delighted to
encounter. Labouchere's plan is simple and straightforward. He
publishes an article in "Truth" containing the most direct and explicit
charges of imposture and fraud against the man whom he has
determined to expose, and he invites this man to bring an action
against him in a court of law and obtain damages, if he can, for
slander. Labouchere usually intimates politely that he will not avail
himself of any preliminary and technical forms which might interpose
unnecessary delay, and that he will do all in his power as defendant
to facilitate and hasten the trial of the action. It happens in many or
most cases that the personage thus invited to appeal to a court of
law cautiously refrains from accepting the invitation. He knows that
Labouchere has plenty of money, perceives that he is not to be
frightened out of his allegations, and probably thinks the safest
course is to treat "Truth" and its owner with silent contempt.
Sometimes, however, the accused man accepts battle in a court of
law, and the attention of the public is riveted on the hearing of the
case. Perhaps Labouchere fails to make out every one of his
charges, and then the result is formally against him and he may be
cast in damages, but he cares nothing for the cost and is probably
well satisfied with the knowledge that he has directed the full
criticism of the public to the general character of his opponent's
doings and has made it impossible for the opponent to work much
harm in the future. Even the strongest political antagonists of
Labouchere have been found ready to admit that he has rendered
much service to the public by his resolute efforts to expose shams
and quackeries of various kinds at whatever pecuniary risk or cost to
himself.

I do not know whether it would be quite consistent with the

realities of the situation if I were to describe Labouchere as a
favorite in the House of Commons. He has provoked so many
enmities, he has made so many enemies by his sharp sarcasms, his
unsparing ridicule, and his sometimes rather heedless personalities,
that a great many members of the House must be kept in a state of
chronic indignation towards him. A man who arouses a feeling of this
kind and keeps it alive among a considerable number of his brother
members could hardly be described with strict justice as a favorite in
the House of Commons. Yet it is quite certain that there is no man in
the House whose sayings are listened to with a keener interest, and
whose presence would be more generally missed if he were to retire
from public life.

One of the many stories which I have heard about Labouchere's

peculiar ways when he was in the diplomatic service is worth
repeating here. It has never been contradicted, so far as I know.
When Labouchere was attaché to the British Legation at Washington
—it was then only a Legation—his room was invaded one day by an
indignant John Bull, fresh from England, who had some grievance to
bring under the notice of the British Minister. That eminent
personage was not then in the house, and the man with the
grievance was shown into Labouchere's room. Labouchere was
smoking a cigarette, according to his custom, and he received the
visitor blandly, but without any effusive welcome. John Bull declared
that he must see the Minister at once, and Labouchere mildly
responded that the British Minister was not in the Legation buildings.
"When will he return?" was the next demand, to which Labouchere
could only make answer that he really did not know. "Then,"
declared the resolute British citizen, "I have only to say that I shall
wait here until he returns." Labouchere signified his full concurrence
with this proposal, and graciously invited his countryman to take a
chair, and then went on with his reading and noting of letters and his
cigarette just as before. Hours glided away, and no further word was
exchanged. At last the hour came for closing the official rooms, and
Labouchere began to put on his coat and make preparations for a
speedy departure. The visitor thereupon saw that the time had come
for some decided movement on his part, and he sternly put to
Labouchere the question, "Can you tell me where the British Minister
is just now?" Labouchere replied, with his usual unruffled
composure, "I really cannot tell you exactly where he is just now,
but I should think he must be nearly halfway across the Atlantic, as
he left New York for England last Saturday." Up rose John Bull in
fierce indignation, and exclaimed, "You never told me that he had
left for England." "You never asked me the question," Labouchere
made answer, with undisturbed urbanity, and the visitor had nothing
for it but to go off in storm.

Labouchere is the possessor of a beautiful and historic residence

on the banks of the Thames—Pope's famous villa at Twickenham.
There he is in the habit of entertaining his friends during the
summer months, and there one is sure to meet an interesting and
amusing company. I have had the pleasure of being his guest many
times, and I need hardly say that I have always found such visits
delightful. Labouchere is a most charming host, and although he is
himself a wonderful talker, full of anecdote and reminiscence, he
never fails to see that the conversation is thoroughly diffused, and
that no guest is left out of the talk. In London he always mixes freely
with society, and his London home is ever hospitable. Many of his
friends were strongly of opinion that he ought to have been invited
to become a member of a Liberal administration. I suppose,
however, that most of the solid and steady personages who form a
Cabinet would have been rather alarmed at the idea of so daring and
damaging a free lance being appointed to a high place in the official
ranks of a Government, and it would have been out of the question
to think of offering any subordinate position to so brilliant a master
of Parliamentary debate. For myself I do not feel any regret that
Labouchere, so far, has not taken any place in an administration. He
has made his fame as a free lance, and has done efficient public
work in that capacity, such as he could hardly have accomplished if
he had been set down to the regular and routine duties of an official
post. He has made a name for himself by his independent support of
every cause and movement which he believed to have justice on its
side, and I could not think with any satisfaction of a so-called
promotion which must submerge his individuality in the measured
counsels and compromises of a number of administrative colleagues.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com