Julian calendar, the calendar of the Roman Empire, as the underlying structure
of his cycle, rather than (for example) the local calendar of Antioch and Syria:
he clearly intended his work to be diffused throughout the Christian world.^90
Although Anatolius restrained himself by advocating only the universal ac-
ceptance of his rules and limits (rather than of his whole cycle), his latent call
for a single, universal Christian calendar must be regarded as an important
ideological innovation. Indeed, even if—as rightly pointed out by the
modern editors—‘catholic’should be read in this context with a small‘c’
(Mc Carthy and Breen 2003 104), Anatolius’use of this term was inevitably
implicated with the general, developing idea of‘Catholicism’in third-century
Christianity.^91
The Councils of Arles and NicaeaThe conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312CE,
and in its wake the Councils of Arles and of Nicaea, transformed the date of
Easter into a social and political issue of major importance. At these Councils
it was formally decided, for thefirst time ever, that all Christians should
observe Easter on the same date. This ushered in a completely new perspective
for Christians, and indeed for the ancient world at large, on calendar diversity.
From then onwards, the universal observance of Easter on the same date
became viewed as essential to the cohesion and integrity of the Church, whilst
deviation from the mainstream Easter date became associated with schism and
heresy.
This major transformation was largely due to the Roman Emperor’s in-
volvement in Church affairs, and to his resolve both as a Christian to make
sense of Christianity by ironing out all its diversity, and as an emperor to bring
the Church under centralized control. But it would be over-simplistic to
attribute this change entirely to the emperor, and not to appreciate the
role of leading bishops—especially perhaps at the Council of Arles, where
the role of Constantine appears to have been more limited—in seizing the
opportunity of Constantine’s conversion to promote the long-standing but
somewhat dormant notions of catholicism and orthodoxy.We also need to
reflect on why the calendar, and more particularly the date of Easter, was
(^90) Mc Carthy and Breen (2004) 95. Although the calendar of Antioch was, in broad terms,
structurally identical with the Julian calendar (see Ch. 5), which means that a switch from one to
another could conceivably have happened in the process of translation of his work from the
original Greek to the extant Latin version (which is edited by Mc Carthy and Breen), Anatolius’
use of‘Kalends’,‘Nones’,‘Ides’, and‘pridie’(the Julian dates for which, in hisfirst table, he
provides the lunar equivalents in each month of the Julian year: 10, ll. 159–73) clearly marks out
his calendar as speci 91 fically Julian and must have already appeared as such in the original version.
e.g. in Tertullian,De PraescriptioneHaereticorum30. 2.
Sectarianism andHeresy 395