observance, nor is it even directly referred to. Polycrates just claimed that his
long line of predecessors in Asia (including, notably, Melito of Sardis, and
going all the way back to John the Evangelist) had consistently observed Easter
on the 14th. On receipt of this letter, Victor decided to excommunicate the
dioceses of Asia and neighbouring churches on the grounds of‘heterodoxy’
(ibid.}9). But other bishops opposed him, among them Irenaeus in Gaul, who
favoured Sunday observance but at the same time did not agree to the
excommunication of churches that were faithful to their ancient custom.
Part of his letter to Victor is then quoted, in which Irenaeus argues that for
the sake of peace, diversity of practice in the observance of the festival and fast
(i.e. Lent) had always been and should still be tolerated:‘the disagreement in
the fast confirms our agreement in the faith’(10–17). Eusebius cannot resist
commenting, in conclusion, that Irenaeus lived up to his name (which means
‘peaceful’: 18). But how exactly the controversy was eventually resolved is,
rather oddly, not clarified.
A much briefer account appears in theDeRatione Paschali(ch. 7) of
Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea (Syria), writtenc.270CE.^67 Anatolius describes
the controversy between Victor and Polycrates, and how it was settled by
Irenaeus; but his account differs from Eusebius’in two significant details.
Firstly—and in spite of his brevity—Anatolius spells out the resolution of the
controversy: the settlement achieved by Irenaeus was that‘each party would
persevere in their own rule’, i.e. would be allowed to retain their custom; and
indeed, he mentions earlier that the bishops of Asia were still celebrating
Easter on the 14th in his own day. Secondly, he makes no mention of Victor’s
attempt to excommunicate his adversary, or to his charge against Polycrates of
heterodoxy.^68
(^67) The text has only survived in a late 4th- or 5th-c. Latin translation, now available in the
critical edition of Mc Carthy and Breen (2003). The long-standing scholarly view that this Latin
text was a medieval forgery, largely misled by thefirst edition of the text, based on a faulty
manuscript, can now be discredited on the basis of this new edition, even if not all the arguments
of the editors for the authenticity of the text and the accuracy of its Latin translation (ibid. 19–24,
116) are convincing (see Holford-Strevens 2008: 188 n. 44). The strongest arguments in favour of
an authentic 3rd-c. dating are that (a) the author’s benign attitude towards those who observe
Easter onluna XIVwould appear inconceivable in a text from the 4th c. or later (as we shall see
towards the end of this Ch.), and (b) his cycle differs completely from all Easter cycles known to
us in later Antiquity, in that it provides lunar dates for all the months of the year, and very oddly,
it is discrepant from the Julian calendar to the point of being totally unusable (as we shall see
below). See also Lejbowicz (2006) 24 n. 57. Mosshammer (2008) 140–3 rejects the authenticity of
this text on the grounds that Eusebius’citation of Anatolius differs from it (HE7. 32). It seems
perfectly possible, however, for these differences to have arisen from editorial corrections by
Eusebius (e.g. of Anatolius’date of the equinox, which Eusebius may have considered erroneous
and inauthentic) or by the Latin translator (e.g. the omission by the latter of a statement of only
marginal importance that is cited by Eusebius at 7. 32. 19—if indeed this is still part of his
citation of Anatolius); see Mc Carthy and Breen loc. cit. and 126–39.
(^68) Thefirst point is noted by Mc Carthy and Breen (2003) 91–2. It could be argued that
Anatolius’omission of the attempted excommunication is only due to the brevity of his account;
384 Calendars in Antiquity