This 30-year cycle was no doubt a response to the 50-year decree that was
issued by the western faction of the same Council, in which Roman and
Alexandrian churches agreed to compromise on the dates of Easter (as we
have seen above). The 30-year cycle, indeed, was also a compromise in the
spirit of Nicaea (which, significantly, is explicitly referred to with much
reverence in its prologue),^142 but this compromise was only between eastern
parties. Thus the occurrence in this cycle of some Easters at the time of the
Jewish Passover but others one month later may be interpreted as a compro-
mise between the Syrian custom of‘following the Jews’and the Council of
Nicaea’s resolution, on the contrary, not to follow the Jews.^143 The limit of 21
March was a concession to the Alexandrian rule of the equinox, whereas the
construction of a 30-year cycle unlike the Alexandrian 19-year cycle and tied
to the calendar of Antioch was clearly a concession to the Syrians. But no
consideration was given to the Roman limits of Easter: indeed, the occurrence
ofluna XIVon 19 April in year 22 of the cycle was dangerously close to the
Roman limit of 21 April, and it may not have gone unnoticed that thisluna
XIVdate would lead, onlyfive years later (in 349), to an Easter Sunday beyond
the Roman limit (on 24 April). The 30-year cycle of the eastern faction of the
Serdica Council was thus deliberately designed to marginalize the Church of
Rome. In this way, the Easter calendar was made an integral part of the
easterners’political, factionalist strategy.
Earlier in 343CE, Easter had been observed in Rome and Alexandria on
different dates; as suggested above, their failure to compromise may have had
something to do with Athanasius being in exile, and the Alexandrian see in the
hands of Gregory (above, after n. 131). A similar situation arose in 357 and
360 CE, when Athanasius was again in exile: Easter was observed in Alexandria
on 23 March and 23 April respectively,^144 both dates outside the Easter limits
(^142) Schwartz loc. cit., Stern 2001: 126–7. The pro-Nicene character of this document, albeit
factionalist, has not been given proper recognition. The eastern faction at the Serdica Council has
generally been labelled as Arian, hence anti-Nicene (e.g. Hefele and Leclerq 1907: 813–19, Martin
and Albert 1985: 289–90 n. 43, and Lejbowicz 2006: 54 n. 140); but this reflects the perspective of
a biased, Orthodox tradition that alreadyfinds expression in the entry for 343CEof the Index of
Athanasius’Festal Letters (Cureton 1848: p. lii, Martin and Albert 1985: 242–3) and that often
used‘Arian’as a blanket term of abuse against its opponents. On the meanings of this term
in this period, see Gwynn (2007). 143
E. Schwartz (1905) 123. On the eastern, Syrian custom, see above, n. 109, and further
below. 144
So at least according to the Index: Martin and Albert (1985) 256–9, 260–1. Camplani
(1989) 111–12 argues that as Athanasius did not write festal letters in these years—according to
the Index, although some sources suggest otherwise—these dates would have been retrospec-
tively calculated by the author of the Index on the basis of the Alexandrian 19-year cycle.
Nevertheless, it may be assumed that these dates were observed in Alexandria in these years,
first because there is no evidence that any compromise was made, and secondly because the
further we move down the 4th c., the more justified becomes the assumption that the Alexan-
drian cycle was used.
410 Calendars in Antiquity