compromise, by yielding on several occasions to the Roman date; but in some
cases, Rome may have also compromised.^129 Thefirst of these compromises
was possibly in 333CE, when Athanasius’Easter date was Sunday 15 April, the
same date as in Rome (according to the Calendar Codex of 354), whereas
according to the Alexandrian cycle it should have been 22 April—a date that
could not be accepted at Rome because it exceeded the limit of 21 April. If, as
is quite possible, the Alexandrian cycle was already in use in this period, then
Athanasius’change of the date from 22 to 15 April is best interpreted as a
deliberate compromise with Rome.^130
At this stage, however, compromise between Alexandria and Rome was not
yet official policy. This may explain why in 343CEEaster was held on different
dates: in Rome on 3 April, and in Alexandria, as probably announced by
Athanasius, on 27 March.^131 But this failure to compromise probably had a
more specific, circumstantial explanation. Athanasius was then in exile in the
West, whilst the Alexandrian see was (temporarily) held by Gregory of
Cappadocia. As we shall later see, Athanasius’opponents in the East had no
interest in compromising with the Roman Easter. Athanasius may have felt it
politically more credible to announce in his festal letter the true date of the
Alexandrian cycle, which he knew would be observed in Alexandria, than to
announce a compromise with Rome which he knew would not be enforced, in
his absence, in his home city.
It is probably his inability to enforce a compromise for Easter 343 that led
Athanasius and his party in the winter of the same year to formulate an
explicit policy at the Council of Serdica, where according to the Index of
Athanasius’Festal Letters, a‘50-year decree regarding Easter’was agreed
between Romans and Alexandrians.^132 This implies not only an agreement
in principle to compromise, but also perhaps that common Easter dates were
calculated in advance for the subsequent 50-year period.^133 That dates were set
(^129) Thus E. Schwartz (1905) 57–8 interprets Rome’s Easter of 340CEon 30 March, instead of 6
April according to thesupputatio(see above, near n. 119), as a compromise to match the
Alexandrian date. But this interpretation is based on the unverified assumption that
thesupputatioshould normally have been observed (see discussion above, near n. 122)
(^130) The Index of Athanasius’Festal Letters, which normally assumes the Alexandrian cycle (as
explained above), suggests that the Alexandrian date ofluna XIVwas deliberately changed for
this purpose from 15 to 14 April (Martin and Albert 1985: 230–1, 322–3; this is not a textual
error,paceNeugebauer 1979: 99).
(^131) The Roman date is confirmed by thesupputatioRomanaas well as the calendar of 354. For
the Alexandrian date, the only source is the Index (Martin and Albert 1985: 242–3); but we may
treat it as reliable, because although Athanasius’festal letter for 343 has not been preserved, the
Index explicitly states that Athanasius wrote one, which suggests that the author of the Index had
it before him and used it as his source.
(^132) Fifteenth entry of the Index, for 343CE: Cureton (1848), p. lii, Martin and Albert (1985)
242 – 3.
(^133) But as Hefele and Leclerq (1907) 805 emphasize, this does not imply that a newcyclewas
devised. Curiously, this‘decree’is not recorded in the Council’s Canons. On the date of the
Serdica Council, see Ch. 6 n. 114.
Sectarianism andHeresy 407