of the Church of Rome, which kept 30 March and 16 April.^145 It has been
argued that Alexandria refused to compromise in these two years because of
the Arian—or more precisely Homoean—and thus anti-Nicene convictions of
its (then) bishop George (Richard 1974: 331, Lejbowicz 2008: 298 = 2010:
28 – 9). Actually, it may be argued that a compromise with Rome in these years
would have required a radical adjustment of the Alexandrian 19-year
reckoning which any Alexandrian, even of Nicene conviction, might have
had difficulty in agreeing to.^146 Nevertheless, George’s failure to compromise
in 360 seems to have been understood by some of his contemporaries as
motivated by Arianism or Homoeanism: this would explain why Auxentius,
bishop of Milan—himself also Homoean—decided in 360 to follow the Alex-
andrian date, presumably in solidarity with George, rather than the date of the
much closer church of Rome.^147 On this occasion, therefore, the Alexandrian
reckoning was appropriated by Arians as a way of uniting together against the
Nicene camp.^148
These incidents were isolated in time and place, and had but a limited effect
on the Arian–Nicene controversies; but they contributed to the slowly
emerging redefinition of calendar diversity as a form of heresy. In due course,
as we shall now see, calendar diversity was to develop into a major here-
siological issue within Christianity.
(^145) So according to the Calendar of 354. Other sources give other dates for the Roman Easter
of 360CE(9 and 17 April: see Lejbowicz 2008: 299 = 2010: 30), yet only 16 April seems to have
been possible. 146
This applies to 343 as much as to 357 and 360. In 343, the redating of Easter to 3 April
would have requiredluna XIVin the Alexandrian reckoning to be shifted forward by two days,
from 25 to 27 March; in 357, similarly, compromise with Rome would have requiredluna XIVto
be shifted forward from 21 to 23 March. In 360, perhaps more drastically, the redating of Easter
would have requiredluna XIVto be shiftedbackwardby two days, from 17 to 15 April;
otherwise, Easter on 16 April would have occurred, absurdly, beforeluna XIV. As we have
seen above (nn. 130, 135), Athanasius’compromises did not involves shifts of more than one
day, although the compromise of 349CEmight have necessitated a shift ofluna XIVfrom 19 to
21 March for the rule of the equinox not to be breached. 147
That these dates were followed in Milan in 360 is attested by Ambrose in his epistle of 387
CEon the date of Easter (epistle no. 13extra collectionemin Zelzer 1982: 222–34, paragraph 21 on
p. 234). The explanation of this date as a reflection of Auxentius’Homoeanism is in Lejbowicz
(2008) 295–300 = (2010) 26–31, following a suggestion of Leofranc Holford-Strevens. Mos-
shammer (2008: 170) remarks that the rationale for the Roman limit of 21 April (on which
Mosshammer (2008) 170 remarks that the rationale for the Roman limit of 21 April (on which
see above, n. 123) was in any case of no concern to the Milanese.
(^148) The Index of Festal Letters reports that in 340CE, Gregory and his Arian colleagues
initially set the date of Easter on 23 March, six days beforeluna XIV; but this was a gross error
rather than an alternative reckoning, and as the Index informs us, Gregory eventually
corrected himself with considerable embarrassment (Cureton 1848: p. li; Martin and Albert
1985: 238–9).
Sectarianism andHeresy 411