equinox: 5, ll. 107–10). Anatolius also opposes the longer cycles of the African
rimarii, who assume different limits again (12, ll. 198–211).^88
Anatolius’tone in these passages is thoroughly polemical; and yet, when he
turns to the question of whether Easter should be on the 14th of the moon or
the following Sunday, he becomes remarkably conciliatory. In chapter 7, he
describes the Asian custom of observing Easter onluna XIVand the contro-
versy that ensued a century earlier between Polycrates and Victor, eventually
settled by Irenaeus with an agreement to disagree (see above). He then
compares the merits of both customs—purely on theological grounds—and
goes on to explain, in chapter 8, why he favours observance of Easter on the
following Sunday, in spite of his opponents’arguments (7–8, ll. 111–51).
These chapters show no animosity or polemic: Anatolius gives a voice to
both sides, and then simply explains his own preference. This change of
tone, in contrast to the polemics referred to above, demands to be explained.
Anatolius’sympathy for Irenaeus’‘agreement to disagree’, and his appar-
ently conciliatory stance with regard to the question ofluna XIVor the
following Sunday, seem to have been motivated by a will to unite different
Christian traditions under a universal,‘catholic’rule. Indeed, the principles
adopted by Anatolius in the construction of his cycle, and more precisely its
‘limits’, were apparently designed to accommodate these conflicting traditions.
By adopting the relatively early lunar limits of 14th–20th of the moon
(for Easter Sunday), Anatolius made it possible for Easter to be celebrated at
least sometimes on the 14th of the moon; thus although basically siding with
Sunday observance, a concession was still made for the custom of the churches
of Asia. This explains why he concludes that his rules and limits are satisfac-
tory for‘catholics’: whilst falling short of insisting that his cycle must be
adopted by all Christians in all its details, he does expect all Christians to
adopt the rules and limits that underpin it, and in this way to come to some
universal agreement.^89
In this respect, Anatolius’stance differed significantly from that of Irenaeus
in the second century. In the late third century, there was still no evidence of
any fall-out or schism over the date of Easter; in spite of minor polemics in
Anatolius’work—mainly directed against his fellow computists—an irenic
approach was still preferred when it came to the disagreement between the
churches of Rome and Asia. However, rather than simply tolerating an
agreement to disagree, Anatolius sought to impose a compromise and thus a
single,‘catholic’(in its original sense of‘universal’) Christian calendar that
would be good for all. This claim of universality explains his choice of the
(^88) Of the Gaulish computists, nothing is else is known. The Africanrimariiare identified by
Mc Carthy and Breen (2003) 102 as Novatians (on whom see further below), and this passage as
referring more speci 89 fically to the cycle of pseudo-Cyprian.
12, ll. 198–211, and as interpreted by Mc Carthy and Breen (2003) 142–3.
394 Calendars in Antiquity