Also recently discovered that the Indian Christian tradition was so well established by AD 325 that the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea had at least 1 delegate from the Indian Church. … “India” was a more nebulous entity than the modern nation, so it may not have been within the confines of modern India, but “John the Persian, of all Persia and great India” is recorded at Nicea. Other interactions with “India” are described, like Pantaenus in 180.
The Pantaenus is from Eusebius. But who is “John the Persian, of all Persia and great India”?
I quickly found an article by A. Mingana, “The Early Spread of Christianity in India”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 10 (1926), 435-514 (online here), which on p.495 reads:
The second bishop of which history makes mention is John, who in the Council of Nicaea of 325 signs himself “ bishop of the Great India and Persia.” If historical this John must have presumably been the bishop of a town in North India, close to the frontiers of Persia proper.
In the signatures to the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, as reproduced by Cyzicenus, the same entry is found : “Joannes Persa, Ecclesiis in tota Persia et Magna India.” In 1908  I treated as a fable the presence in the Council of Nicaea of this John the Persian, and for Persia I substituted Perrhe, on the Upper Euphrates. Against this view may be urged the fact that Eusebius of Caesarea was present at the Council, and that in his De Vita Constantini, he actually makes mention of a bishop of Persia as present in the Council: “Quidam etiam ex Perside episcopus Synodo interfuit.” The presence, therefore, in the Council of Nicaea of a bishop John, from one of the numerous sees of Persia of the beginning of the fourth century, preferably Riwardashir, is not altogether impossible. Michael the Syrian expressly states in his history  that this John the Persian attended the Council of Nicaea. We must admit, however, that in a passage of Michael the Syrian quoted above, the expression “Great India” is used of Ethiopia and Arabia Felix combined. Speaking of the Council of Nicaea, Barsalibi, another well-known West Syrian writer says : “Among the Fathers of the Council Jacob of Nisibin and Ephrem his pupil, Ithalaha of Edessa, Mara of Macedonopolis, and John of Persia, were Syrians.”
2. Labbé’s Sacrosancta Concilia, ii. 235. …
3. Pat. Gr. lxxxv, 1342 sq. The author, however, is not very reliable.
This is no doubt the origin of our story.
“Cyzicenus” is Gelasius of Cyzicus, History of the Council of Nicaea ( = CPG 6034). A quick search on the web found volume 2 of Labbé, but this (in column 227) turned out merely to reproduce the text of Gelasius of Cyzicus, book 2, chapter 28 (link here).
Gelasius was given a critical edition for the first time by G. C. Hansen, Anonyme Kirchengeschichte (Gelasius Cyzicenus, CPG 6034), de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, 2002; GCS N. F. 9. This, being a German publication, printed without translation, of an obscure text which the editor chose to suggest is anonymous, is naturally accessible to almost nobody. (I saw a copy offered for sale online for nearly $200!) Luckily a kind correspondent supplied me with the page (p.85). The chapter is 28, rather than the 27 of Labbé. The entry for John duly appears on line 22.
Dr Hansen suggests (p.xi) that the work was composed around 480 AD. This date is no doubt based upon the contents which include discussion of ecclesiastical controversies of a period rather later than Nicaea. He also suggests that the work is a compilation of earlier writers, including the lost Gelasius of Caesarea, Theodoret, Philip of Side, and so forth.
I’ve never looked at the ancient lists of delegates. An article that might address this is E. Honigmann, “The Original Lists of the Members of the Council of Nicaea , the Robber Synod and the Council of Chalcedon”, Byzantion 16 (1942-1943), pp. 20-80, but this also is inaccessible to me, since my JSTOR access via my old university does not include it.
I always learn something from T. D. Barnes’ books. While looking for something online, I happened across these remarks:
Much will always be obscure about the Council of Nicaea. No stenographic record of the proceedings was taken and no minutes were produced by anyone.
It is true that we have reports of different parts of the debates from four men who attended the council – Constantine himself, Eustathius the bishop of Antioch (frag. 32 Spanneut = Theodoretus, HE 1.8.1-5, cf. Barnes 1978a: 57-59), Eusebius of Caesarea (VC 3.6-22) and Athanasius, who attended as the deacon and assistant of Alexander of Alexandria and composed a very selective account of the council nearly thirty years later in a long letter which he probably addressed to Liberius, who became bishop of Rome on 17 May 352 (De decretis Nicaeni synodi [CPG 2120], cf. Barnes 1993a: 110-112, 198-200).
And later writers who were not at the council provide isolated snippets of information about it. such as that the creed was actually written by the Cappadocian priest Hermogenes (Basil of Caesarea, Epp. 81, 244.9, 263.3). But neither singly nor collectively do any of these provide more than discontinuous glimpses of the course of the debates.
Hang on … the creed was actually written by a Cappadocian priest named Hermogenes? Of course I had to look this up!
The reference is to letter 81 of the letters of Basil of Caesarea. This is online in several translations. It is, in fact, a letter of recommendation for a job, for the son of this Hermogenes. Here’s the NPNF version:
Not then to be at issue with you, but rather to have you on my side in my defence which I make in the presence of Christ I have, after looking round in the assembly of the presbyters of the city, chosen the very honourable vessel, the offspring of the blessed Hermogenes, who wrote the great and invincible creed in the great Synod. He is a presbyter of the Church, of many years standing, of steadfast character, skilled in canons, accurate in the faith, who has lived up to this time in continence and asceticdiscipline, although the severity of his austere life has now subdued the flesh; a man of poverty, with no resources in this world, so that he is not even provided with bare bread, but by the labour of his hands gets a living with the brethren who dwell with him. It is my intention to send him.
In order, therefore, that I may not come into litigation with you, but rather may find in you an associate in my defence before Christ, having looked about in the assembly of the presbyters belonging to this city, I have chosen that most worthy vessel, the offspring of the blessed Hermogenes — who, in the great Synod, wrote the great and invincible creed.
DeFerrari, the translator, adds the notes:
* He was the spiritual offspring of Hermogenes, having been ordained by him. Hermogenes was bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and predecessor of Dianius. Cf. Letters CCXLIV, CCLXIII.
* I.e., at Nicaea. Basil seems to forget that it was Leontius who was present at Nicaea as bishop of Caesarea, although Hermogenes may have been present in lower orders, and may have written the creed.
Neither note seems necessary, tho.
But what does the phrase “wrote the creed” (πίστιν γράψαντος) signify? It can’t mean “composed”, but rather “write down”, “note down”, i.e. from the discussion.
All the same, it is interesting to learn of this little piece of information!
If we followed the letter of Eusebius, preserved by Athanasius in De synodis Nicenis, we would suppose that the creed was the same as that which Eusebius offered to the council as his own confession, with only the addition of the word “homoousios” proposed by Constantine himself. But this never sounded very likely. I suspect that the text of Eusebius’ letter has suffered in transmission – probably some paragraphs have been omitted – and consequently misleads us.
In many places online we can find the statement that St Nicholas of Myra – the basis for Santa Claus – was present at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where he punched Arius in the mouth. So … is it true?
Unfortunately we have almost no historical information at all about any St Nicholas of Myra – our information is entirely based on Saint’s Lives of him, of which the earliest are 9th century, and the latest are modern compilations based on medieval collections. All these Lives are really closer to folk-tales than to history, and they reflect the accumulations of popular legends. Some of them do have Nicholas attending the Council of Nicaea; but they do not contain the story of Nicholas punching Arius.
The main collection of source materials about Nicholas is by Gustav Anrich, and in this I found what I suspect is the answer.
Before I look at the data, let’s summarise what it says. Sometime in the middle ages, the story about his attendance at Nicaea was “improved” to show him slapping “an Arian”. Over time, this turned into a story about him slapping Arius himself. The story is now a standard item in Greek Orthodox tradition, and is embedded in their handbook of icon-painting.
On to the data.
In Anrich volume 1, p.459, in the section devoted to testimonia, there is an extract from a Latin text (!) by a certain Petrus de Natalibus, a Venetian. Petrus in 1370 was bishop of Equilio (Jesolo) near Venice, and died around 1400. The text of his work reads:
Fertur beatum Nicolaum jam senem Nicaeno concilio interfuisse et quemdam Arrianum zelo fidei in maxillam percussisse ob idque a concilio mitra et pallio privatum extitisse; propter quod ut plurimum sine mitra depingitur. Sed dum aliquando missam beatae virginis, cujus erat devotus, in pontificalibus celebraret et privationem mitrae et pallii defleret quasi zelo nimio fidei ablata: ecce, cunctis videntibus, duo angeli eidem astiterunt, quorum unus mitram, alius pallium sibi divinitus restituerunt. Et extunc insignia reassumpsit sibi caelitus restituta.
It happened that saint Nicholas, now an old man, was present at the Council of Nicaea, and out of jealousy of faith struck a certain Arian in the jaw, on account of which it is recorded that he was deprived of his mitre and pallium; on account of which he is often depicted without a mitre. …
This tells us that the story had arisen by whenever Petrus wrote these words – it is really difficult to find much about him! -, and was known in the West, or at least in Venice. So it probably had existed for some time at that point. But at this point it is not Arius himself – only “a certain Arian”.
The next piece of data is an extract from a biography by an obscure Damaskenos Monachus, written in the second half of the 16th century. Apparently he lived in the second half of the 16th century, and may (or may not) be identical with the man of that name who was Bishop of Liti and Rendini in 1564; and Metropolitan of Naupaktos and Arta in 1570. He composed a biography of St Nicholas of Myra, based on earlier accounts, which he included in his Thesaurus. The oldest edition of his work was printed in Venice in 1570. Anrich obtained this information from E. Legrand, Bibliographie hellenique II (1885), p.12 f., which contains little more than you have above.
Anrich states that the Vita of Damaskenos is a vulgarisation of the Vita by Simon Metaphrastes, who created the standard Greek hagiographical texts in the 11th century. I don’t know if any edition of Damaskinos can be found online?
Damascenos the Monk: Life of saint Nicholas the wonder-worker: Large collection of lives of saints, or “Great Book of Saints” by Const. Chr. Doukakis. Athens, 20 December, 1896, pages 171-190.
10. p.179-180. After the king seated himself on the throne, one hundred and fifty nine fathers seated themselves at either side of him, both they and Arius arguing with much unease. Saint Nicholas, noticing that Arius was about to quash all the archpriests and moved by divine zeal, rose up and gave him a slap that shook all his members. Complaining, Arius says to the king: “O most just king, is it fair, before your royal highness, for one to strike another? If he has something to say, let him speak as the other fathers do; if he is ignorant, let him remain silent as his like are. For what reason does he slap me in the presence of your highness?” Hearing this, the king was greatly disappointed and said to the archpriests: “Holy archpriests, it is the law, that whosoever raises his hand before the king to strike someone, that it should be cut off. I leave this to you, so that your holiness(es) might be the judge.” The archpriests replied, saying: “Your majesty, that the archpriest has acted wrongly all of us confess it; except that we beseech you, let us unstate him now and imprison him, and after the dissolution of the council, we shall then convict him.”
Having unstated and imprisoned him, that night Christ and the Holy Mother Theotokos appeared in prison and said: “Nicholas, why are you imprisoned?” And the saint replied: “For loving You”. Christ then said to him: “Take this,” and gave him the holy gospel; the Holy Mother Theotokos gave him the archpriestly omophorion (scapular). The next day some acquaintances of his brought him bread and they saw that he was freed of his fetters and on his shoulder he was wearing the omophorion, while reading the holy gospel he was holding in his hands. Having asked him where he found them, he told them the whole truth. Having learnt of this, the king took him out of the prison and asked for forgiveness, as did all the others. After the dissolution of the council, all the archpriests returned home, as did saint Nicholas, to his province.
This is the earliest text known to me, and evidently to Anrich, which records Nicholas punching Arius.
Die Darstellung der Nicaea-Episode stimmt mit den Angaben des Malbuches (unten S. 463,15 ff u. 33 ff); die nur in den Hauptzügen mit diesen beiden stimmende Dartellung von Petrus de Natalibus beweist, daß der Grundstock der Legende mindestens ins 14. Jh. zurückgeht.
The presentation of the Nicaea episode is consistent with the information provided by the Painting book (below, p 463, 15 et seq u 33 et seq.); since only the more significant features of these two versions agree with the story as given by Petrus de Natalibus, this shows that the foundation of the legend goes back at least to the 14th century.
The “Painting book” (I don’t know the English name of this work: in German it is the Malbuch) is the 18th century manual of iconography from Mount Athos, produced by Dionysius of Foura. This gives the legends to be attached to icons. The first reads as follows:
“The holy and ecumenical 1st Synod in Nicaea….
And Arius, standing, also in hieratic vestment, and standing before him, Saint Nicholas with arm outstretched to slap him.”
The second one says:
“The saint in prison, receiving the gospel from Christ and the omophorion from the Holy Mother. – Prison, and at the centre is the saint and Christ at his right holding a gospel; at his left the Theotokos holding an omphorion: they are giving these to him.”
The presence of the item in the Handbook shows that the topic is a standard one for icons. So we may presume that the story reaches us today from Greek Orthodox sources, for whom it is a traditional motif, depicted in their churches.
Here is an example of the scene in a fresco from the Soumela monastery (via Livius.org):
To summarise again: there is no ancient evidence whatever that St Nicholas punched or slapped Arius at the First Council of Nicaea. The story is not found in any text before the late 14th century, and even that one mentions only “a certain Arian”. In the next two centuries the legend mutates into Nicholas slapping Arius; and is then disseminated in works of popular fiction, and by the paintings of icons. It has no historical basis whatever.
UPDATE: I am advised that ράπισμα means slap, not punch. My correspondent adds: ” it was a slap intended to shock Arius back to his senses”.
G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos: Der Heilige Nikolaos in der Griechischen Kirche, 2 vols, 1913. Accessible to Americans at Hathi Trust.↩
Anrich gives a reference: Petrus de Natalibus, Catalogus sanctorum et gestorum eorum ex diversis voluminibus collectus, Lugduni 1508, Fol. VII. The English title appears to be Legends of the Saints. Various editions are present on Google Books. In the 1543 edition, the text is on folio Vb, at the top of the right-hand column.↩
I have just returned from a coach tour around parts of Turkey. One of the places visited was Iznik, formerly Nicaea.
Nicaea stands at the eastern end of a substantial lake, and at the western end of a considerable plain filled with endless olive groves. The lake itself is surrounded by mountains, with a breach at the western end through which the lake waters empty into the sea.
The town is now little more than a village, but it still shows the Hellenistic street plan. It is surrounded by two sets of tremendous medieval walls from the Byzantine period. The gateways themselves are Roman, built in Trajan’s reign, and incorporated into the Byzantine walls. The walls also run along the lake-side. It is a tranquil, pleasant place, and a house in Nicaea overlooking the lake would undoubtedly be a restful place to be.
When our party were driven down to the lake-side, we were intoduced to the remains of a stone structure running out into the lake. This, we were told, was the “Senatus Palace”, built by Constantine, and in which the First Council of Nicaea was held.
One would not, of course, trust unreservedly any statement uttered by a dragoman, from whatever source, but it is certainly the case that there is masonry here, and fragments of the Roman town. It would be entirely remarkable if the site of the council was still to be seen.
Unfortunately I have been unable to verify any of the information given. The following photos were all taken on the spot.