Eusebius’ treatment of the Victor–Polycrates controversy can easily be
understood in the light of the concerns and perspectives of his own day. He
is likely to have had trouble accepting that the controversy ended with an
agreement to disagree: not only was this contrary to the notions of catholicism
and orthodoxy that were gaining force in the early fourth century, but more
particularly, the Council of Arles in 314CE—at the time or shortly after
Eusebius was completing this part of hisEcclesiasticalHistory—was about to
decree, for thefirst time, that all Christians should celebrate Easter on the
same date (as we shall see below). This would explain why, in Eusebius’
narrative, Irenaeus’ resolution was quietly omitted. For similar reasons,
Eusebius’account of Victor excommunicating his adversary on grounds of
calendrical heterodoxy was possibly a fourth-century anachronism: for ex-
communication on such grounds is otherwise only attested, for thefirst time,
at the Council of Antioch in 327CE.
If, following Anatolius, we read Eusebius’account but without the detail of
Victor’s excommunication and charge of heterodoxy, and with the settlement
achieved by Irenaeus, we obtain a significantly different picture. The only
demand that was made on Polycrates—albeit, according to the latter with
threats and intimidation(EusebiusHE5. 24. 7)—was to celebrate Easter on a
different day. But in the absence of any accusation of heresy, his religious
authority, identity, and relationship with other Christian communities were
not under any threat. The absence of excommunication and charges of
heterodoxy also suggests that orthodoxy and unity of practice within the
Church were not, to Victor, an end in itself, at least not in the context of
this controversy: the concept of unity is not mentioned in either Eusebius’or
Anatolius’narratives.^69 Victor’s concern was only that Easter be celebrated on
the date that he deemed correct. Finally, the resolution achieved by Irenaeus
was in complete continuity with Christian practice until then (itself, as we
have seen, in continuity with earlier Jewish tolerance of calendar diversity): as
Irenaeus himself argued, no doubt correctly, Christians had always observed
Easter on a variety of dates, without this affecting the harmony or communion
of world-wide Christianity.
but I see no reason why Anatolius should not have mentioned it. Among later, mid-5th-c.
Church historians, Socrates (HE5. 22. 15–17) follows Eusebius in referring to the attempted
excommunication and omitting Irenaeus’resolution, but Sozomen (HE7. 19. 1), in a much
briefer account, where he erroneously substitutes Polycarp of Smyrna for Polycrates, echoes
Anatolius in omitting the attempted excommunication and spelling out the settlement by which
each party retained its own custom (he also writes that they agreed to remain together in
communion, which echoes the agreement of Anicetus and Polycarp as told in Irenaeus’letter
cited by Eusebius; see above, n. 64). Note also that Epiphanius (late 4th c.)—not known otherwise
for brevity—restricts himself to the statement that Polycarp and Victor‘would not accept letters
of commendation from each other’(Panarion70. 9. 8,Williams 1987–94: ii. 411).
(^69) The concept of Christian unity may have been gaining strength, however, in other contexts:
see King (2008) 33–4.
Sectarianism andHeresy 385