"New Heresy for Old": Pelagianism in Ireland and the Papal Letter of 640
Scholai-s have often I-emarked on the surprising SI-equeiicy with whicli me- dieval 11-ish writei-s referred to rlie heresiarch I'elagiiis and the extent to which they bori-owed Si-om his works.' While there has been nottiiiig like uilanimity on tlie quesrion of why the Irish showed such a liking for him,' all are agi-eed that rhey were iiot rrue Pelagians, in the sense that the iamous theological arguments for which Pelamius was eventually condemned iievei- ? Sound favor with Ii-isli writers.There is oiie document, however - and [hat aii importailt one - wliicli explicitly accuses the Ii-isli of Pelagianism: rhe letter of 640 to the norihern Irish clergy froni the pope-elecr John IV aiid three others of the Roman ciiria, as reported by Kede.Vhe letter has proved a mystery to modern writers, aiid oiie of the most recent lias gone so far as to say thai "Bede's iiiti-iguing aiid puzzliiig refereiice musi i-eniaiii jusr that.""
I arn graicfiil io 21~.Keiinerh Han-isori hi- siirniilaiiiig aiicl Iiclpfiil
VPiiiiiimei-iväs a iioied euccptioii; tiis cscursus oii ihr Pasclial coriti-oversy iti Bnednc ofiera, 2:34X-55, iias aii carriest atieinpr to coine ro grips wirll thc pl-oblcin iind is still of val~ie.ßut cicn Pliiminci- opens hir
"HE 2.19, iiiin>e
"Sec 6 Croiniii, ".\ Seve~itli-Ceiiiiii-)Ii-ish <;oiiipilius,'' p. 409. '' Keiiiietli flai-r-ismi,Tite /i>«rrte¿iior/?of,lr>~io-Sa.ron Hi.
ail likelihood due to tiieir Iiaving been coinpared ior a fuli cycie ivitlr ihe older eigliiy-hui-ycar tables. 2' 2' G. S. M. Walker. ed. aiid Irans., Snncii Coh~mhaniopern. Scripiores Latirii tliberniae 2 (Dublin, 1957: repr. 19i2). pp. 2-12. For background io Colombai>un's ~ieu.s,see 6 Cibiiiiii, "Mo-Sinu niaccu Miii,'. passim. ZS Joncs, "Viciorian and Dionysiac Tables.' I>. 41 I. See Pseudo-Bede, PI. 90:724: "In fine nix. anni habebir epactas xviii. Adde ri. super xviii., fiunt xxia. Adde saltum i~inae.fiuti~ xas. Hi[n]c apparct, quod non addit. red salit in retro, unuin diern." 510 Pelagzunism in Ireland all bi~iilic firsi six years of rhe cycle. Ei-i-ors arising out of this occurred in ilre ycars 482. 522, 526, 546, 550, 577, 594, 597, 617, 621, 641, and 645. (3) 7hc tliird dilfereiice hetween Victorius's arid the Alexandrian reckon- iiig \voiild occur iii years 1-6 of the cycle, where his lunar limits 16-22 col-iflicted with the "orthodox" liinits of 15-21; errors occurred for this i-easoii in the years 475, 476, 495, 516, 590. C;iven ilie niaiiif'est confusion that must have arisen wherever Victorius's tables were uscd, it is hardly surprising that Columbanus should have dis- iiiissed tliein as "more worthy of ridicule and condemnation that of author- i~y."'~Kui ihe iiew iables Iiad hegun to spread in Gaul from an early date hoth hecaiise of the superficial advantages they seemed to offer in providing Essiers hr 532 years and also, doubtless, because they appeared to enjoy papal app~.oval,fbi- ttiey were prefaced iii the manuscripts by the letter of .Arclideacoii (later Pope) Hilarius commissioning Victorius to draw up his dates. "Eue~iso," as C. W. Jones rightly remarked, "churches would be slow io aciopt a new set of tables where any possibility of usins an old set remaii~ed."'~Hence the persistence in Ireland and elsewhere of "uncanoni- cal" ol>servarices, and the resulting need for papal and episcopal exhorta- tioiis io conf'or~niry.'~1t is almosr certain that the Victorian tables were i-eceived iii southerii Ireland as a resiilt of the events about which Cummian rote‘"^ arid there is otlier evidence that proves familiarity with and use of rhein iii thar part of the country by the mid-seventh century." I nnow believe iliat Victorius was also heing used at tlie same time by the ilorthern Irish chui-ches; the evideiice is provided hy this letter of 640. It so happens that the year 641 was one of the problem years in Victorius's tahles, a year with double Easter dates3' A glance at the data he gives for tliai year will illiistrate the nature of the problem:
" "mazis iisii iiel ~ieni;,clipnom quaiii auctoritare": Ep. 1, ed. Wzilker, p. 6. Tlie error of Vicio~iiis'sicays iras appai-enily exposed by Bishop Victor of Capua in 550. Victois work is iii>foi-iiinaiclylosi. bitt orie oC liis criticisms was repeated by Rede in his De lcmporum rnlione 51, cd. Jones, p. 2i2. '"'Victoi-ian aild Dionysiac Tabler," p. 412. M'itness the good exarnple offered by the gradual i-eccpiion of Victorius's ral>lcs, Cor which See n. 23. 'Qc
512 Pelapanism in Ireland
If the northern Irish were in fact using Victorius in 640 (doubtless in parallel with the older eighty-four-year tables), then they would have realized that the next year in the new tables was going to cause problems. They may then have written to Rome (after discussion in synod?) announc- ing that they planned to celebrate Easter on 1 April 641 (marked "Greci" in the tables) and sought confirmation of the date from the curia. The papal letter clearly states that the Irish questions had arrived during the pontificate of Severinus (t2 August 640); how soon after that they were replied to is difficult to say. With Easter occurring in 641 on 8 April (by Dionysiac reckoning), Lent would have begun on 21 Febrwary; Victorius's alternative date, 1 April, would have begun Lent a week earlier, 14 Februar.. Either way, there was riot much time for correction - four or five months at the most. Hence the obvious note of urgency in the papal sesponse. When the Irish letter was received by the apostolic administrators they referred to their own (Dionysiac?) tables and would have seen that 1 April 641 was in fact luna XIIII, not XV. Hence the charge that the Irish were quartodecimans, celebrating Easter on luna XIlII with the Jews. Did they not know that "dies XIIII lunae ad umbras pertinebat"? The important point, therefore, is that the lrish would have giver~the calendar date (1 April); from their point of view the lunar limit did not present a problem, for they thought they were observing luna XV. One further piece of information, hitherto overlooked by most u~iters,~" supports this suggested iilterpretation of events. Letter 22 in the collected correspondence of Bishop Braulio of Saragossa, dated 640,4' touches pre- cisely on the question about the problematic Easter date of 641.42The letter is a reply to a request from an otherrvise almost unknown bishop Eutropius to set him right in tbe matter of the pending Easter." The terminology of address used by Braulio gives the impression that perhaps he was not on familiar terms with his correspondent, who may therefore have been a
"O An cxceprion is Joseph Schmid, Die O.~ic@aberecirnung in dnobo~dländischeß Kirche iiom I. nllgemcinn Koniil zu RRiciiabis zum Ende des Vlll.Jah~iiundc~u, Stiassburger Theologische Studien 911 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1907), pp. 92-93, 101; brit he somehow misunderstood the interiial dating criteria and placed ii C. 630 ("rwar vermutlich vor dem Jahre 631," p. 101; "in einem uns unbekannten Jahre," p. 93). " See the editions by Jose Madoi, Episiolario de S. B~auliode Zarngom, Biblioteca de Antiguos Escritores Cristianos Espaiioles 1 (Madrid, 1941), pp. 132-36; 2nd Luis Riesco Terrero, Epk- ioh& de San Broulio, Anales de la Lnivenidad Hüpalense (Seville, 1975), pp. 114-16. There is ari English iranslation by Claude Bariow, Braulio of Snragossn, I;Nciuosur of Brngn, l'he Fathers of the Church, A Neu- Translation 63, lberian Fathers 2 (Washingtot>,D.C., 1969). My translation is based on Barlow's. 12 There is a usehl discussion in Charles 13. Lynch, Sam1 Braulio, Bkltop o/'Sarngossa (631- 651): Hir L?fe /end WWi,zp, Catholic University of America Studies in Medieval History, ns. 2 (Washington, D.C., 1938), pp. 63-68. '3 Eutropius is named as the addressee in the only surviving manuscript of rhe Ictter, bul Lyndi gives good reason tor suspecting that the name was a laier addition. Pelagianism in Ireland 513
Frankish ecclesiastic rather than a Spania~d.~~Braulio's letter is direct and to the point and is worth citing in illustration of his rneth~d:~~
De festo autem paschali, quod inquirere ab humilitate nostra iussisti, nouerit sanctitas uestra hoc esse rectum, iit sexto Idus Apriles [8 April], iuna uicesima prima, Pascha anno isto celebretur. Sie enim antiqui maiores nostri prescribse- runt, id est ad Tlieudosiiiiii iniperatorem Theupliilus: sic successor eius Cynllus; sic Dionjsius; sic ad papdn7 Leonem Proterius; necnon et Pdscasinus, et reliqui, quoruni longum est facere mentionem, sed et nostri temporis uir insignis Spalensis Ysidorus. hjec credo eos in 7iegotio tarn mnpo ec nece.r.rario pretern~ixsn diii~entiaei Labore potuisse delznquere. In laterculo autem, quem doininus inspexisti, sicu( ueitra sanctitai scnbil, jorte mendosi codicis nd librarii error esl, ei ideo non ut debuit, sed ut contigit prescrib- tuin habet. Sam in Kalendis Aprilibus [l April] hoc anno non Christiaiioruin, sed Pascha occiirrit ludeorum, ex ueteri er non ex nouo Testanieiito. Sed quoniam oportet ut illorum precedat et sic nostra sequatur, quia prius uetus, postea nouuin exstitit Testameiitum. Unde et Dominus qninra feria uetus Pascha cum, di.rcipuli.7 ninnducnuit er iiobis post hoc sahbatum, quod in doininica lucescit, passione ei resurrectione sua sacrauit; ideo cum illis simul celehrare iion pos- sumus, proliibente etiam Niceno concilio, quod in septimo libro Eccle.~asticne?er- tur Hi~lorine.'" Quocirca in sequenti dominica celehi-aiidum est a nobis Pascha, quod erit, ur premisi, sesto Idus Apriles, luna uicesima prima, cum illorom in Kalendis Aprilibus in precedenti dominica, luna celehretur quarta decima. Siiice you have asked my uiiicorthy self to iiiquire about the feasr of Easter, your holiness should kiiow that this is the truth: Easter this year will be celehrated »n 8 April, die tweiity-first da? of ilie inoon. That is how our elders of old prescribed, namely, Tlieophilus to tlie emperor Theodosius; likewise his successor Cyril; like- ivise Dionysius; likewise t'rotei-iiis to Pope Leo, aiid also Pascasinus; and the rest, ivtiom it iuould take too long to meriiion, save for the great man of our age, Isidore of Seville. I do not believe that in such a great and iinportant matter thej would have failed to display their customary carefulness and lahoi-. However, in the table which you, my lord, examined (as youi- holiness writes) [her-e was possibly an error in the maiiuscript oi- by rhe scribe, and that is ruh? it is ihat way and not as it should he. For on 1 April in this year falls the Pasch OS the Jews, not OS Christians. in accoi-dance with the Old rather thaii rhe Sew Testa- ment. Hence it is pi-oper ihat theirs should come fii-st and ours follow, since rhe Old Testament precedes and the New follows. Wlience Our Lord ate the Last Supper ivirh his disciples oii tlie hfth day and after thar, hy his Passion and
i* The techiiical evidence of ilic lote, would tenrl to siippon this iiiterpretarion; all pre~ious commentarors have assumed that Eirtropiiis was a Spaniard. '=The texi here is based oii the rwo nted ediuons. which are not consistenr. I have italicired passages borrowed from orhei- wrirei-s. ,' Eusebius of' Caesaruea, 1-1E 7.32, has i,orliing to do wirh the Nicene council but concerns the I'aschal writings of Anatolius. bishop of Laodicea. The mistaken rekrence was taken over rerhaiim Srom the proiogue ta Dionysius's rables, although this was not nored by either ediror, iior by Lynch or Barloiv. The correct identification of the cilation is pi-oof' rhat Braulio was using Dionysiac tablcs. Resurrection, he consecrated for us the sahhath, which dawns on Sunday. There- fore ive cannot celehrate with them because of thc prohihition at the council ol Nicaea, as Sound in book seven of the Eccle~slicniHirlor).. Therefore we rnusr celebrate Easter an the following Sunday, ivhich (as I have already said) will be 8 April, the twenty-first day of the rnoon, since their Easter is celehrated on 1 April, the preceding Sunday, on the four-teentli day of the rnoon. Braulio's correspondent wrote to say that he was going to celebrate Easter on 1 April in the coming year, though some question seems to have entered his mind - douhtless because of the double dates in his Victorian tables. Braulio, on the other hand, consulted his own (Dionysiac) tables only to find that 1 April 641 was luna XIIII - hence his remark about celebration with the Jews. He suggested politely to Eutropius that his tables were faulty, citing verbatim from the letter of Proterius of Alexandria to Pope Leo (454) in which Proterius dismissed the Roman tables with an equal disdain. Eutropius seems not to have specified the source for his proposed Easter date, and Braulio may not have known that he was using Victorius, perhaps because Victorius never found favor in S~ain.~'But the points to be noted in Braulio's letter are (1) that Eutropius was proposing to celebrate Easter on the date marked "Greci" in Victorius's table; (2) that Braulio - who was using different tables - understood Eutropius's date to imply celebration on luna XIIII, though Eutropius's own tables gave the moon's age as luna XV, which he naturally accepted as canonical; (3) that the implied quar- todecimanism in Eutropius's date could only have made sense to Braulio; Eutropius himself was clearly unaware of the implication; and (4) that hecause of his uncertainty about the Easter of the coming year Eutropius wrote to one whom he regarded as of higher authority in a technical matter of this kind in order to ascertain the true date. All these points apply equally to the papal letter of 640 to the Irish. (1) The northern Irish (as I believe) informed the curia of their intention to celebrate on 1 April 641, the date marked "Greci" in their Victorian tables. (2) The curia - using different tables, presumably Dionysia~~~- under- stood the Irish to be advocating celebration on luna XI111 (quar- todecimanism). (3) The most important poiut of all, however, is that talk of observin~Easter on luna XI111 need not necessarily imply that the Irish
" For the evidente, see Kwxh, "Einfiihmng," esp. pp. 115-22. Victonus was known ro bur stron%lycriticiied b? a monk Lco, writing to a Spanish bishop Sesuldus iii 625; he was also known ro Isidoi-e of Seviile, EljmologMe 6.151. " "l'his is Harrisoii's rerdict. Frnmciuork, p. 61: "Ar Rome, therefore, we may i-easonabiythink of a swing away fio~ntlie Victorian and in favour of the Dionysiac lunar limits as raking place in the decade 630 ro 640. 'The iacr of agreement between thc riuals, ihe absence of alternatives, over a Iong period of years will have helped ro make this cliange smoother and less paintril." While 1 would take issue with some of rhe rcasons offered for thc change, tliere seems little cause to doubt the geneial validity of thc staiement. Pela8anism in Ireland 515
were still eniploying the old eighty-four-year tables alone.49 The papal letter censured the Irish for Pelagianism because they were celebrating Easter (as Rome thought) on the fourteenth day of the nioon "contra orthodoxam fidem, nouam ex ueteri heresim renouai-e conantes, pascha nostrum . . . et XIIIla luna cum Hebreis celebrare nitentes." Readers of Bede's Eccle.~iasticnlNWtoq, however, could be pardoned for thinking tliat the two problems were separate, for he omirs entirely the passage in the letter that gave the detailed paschal arguments, suhstituting in its place the paraphrase "exposita autem ratione paschalis obseruantiae, ita de I'elagianis in eadem epistula subdunt," followed by a verbatim passage on that sub- je~t.~OBut even the Romans realized that a Pelagian revival in Ireland icould be a curious developmeiit, for they pointed out themselves that "noii solum per isros CC annos abolita est, sed er cotidie a nobis perpetua anathemate sepulta damnat~r."~' The solution to the mystery is, however, surprisingly straightforward, and in case the reader of Bede inissed the direct connection between uiior- thodoxy in the Easter question and Pelagianism, he could find it eveii more explicitly pointed out in his account of Ceolfrid's letter to King Naitoii of the Pi~ts.~~That letter is a very accurate and concise preseiitation of the or- thodox view on the matter of Easter in Bede's time. Ceolfrid clearly srates that the seven days of üiileavened Bread (azyma) are to be observed oii luna XV-XXI: "Porro dies XI11Ia extra hunc numerum separatim sub paschae titulo praenotatur." Care must be taken, however, lest the Picts fall iiito the error of those "who presume either to anticipate or E;O beyond" these limits. Ceolfrid therefore condemns observance of Luiia XIIII-XX (Irisli practice) and luna XVI-XXII (Victorian doctrine). Anyorie who presumes to antici- Pate Easter by observing on luna XI111 "joins ivith those ivho believe that they can be saved without the intervening grace of Christ" ("concordat autern eis, qui siiie praeueniente gratia Christi se saluari posse confiduiit").
l'Note, howcver. thar iii Mac Carihy'r reconstrucrioii of the Ii-ish Cycle (,4n>mic qf Glsiri-, 4, iable 0)Eastei falls oi> 1 rlpl-il iii 641. This ir the casc also in rhe iables cornpile
Bede liad himself referred to this same combination of errors - quar- todecimanism and Pelagianism - iii his De tcmporum mtione 6,'"sing words that he may have found in Ceolfrid's letter: "Nam si qui plenilunium pas- cliale ante aequinoctiuni fieri posse contenderit, ostendat vel ecclesiam sanctam priusquam salvator in carne veniret extitisse perfectam, vel quem- libet fidelium ante praeventum gratiae illius aliquid posse supernae lucis habere." The basic tenet of Pelagius's heresy was thai man could achieve salvation through bis own efforts, without the need of grace.j4 Man's sinful- ness, wliile inherent in his being, was not the burden of original sin, so that Christ's Passion and Resurrection were not the sole means of his redemp- tion. To the Roman curia, therefore, anyone who advocated (or who seemed to advocate) celebration of Easter on the fourteenth of the moon was preempting the pasch and, hy the same tokeri, denying the efficacy of the Resurrection as the true instrument of man's redemption. Thus were the lrish seen to be resuscitating the "uirus Pelagianae hereseos," though in fact they rvere doing no such thing. An unwarranted premise at Rome combined with fortuitous circumstances at hone to deceive even men living at the time and led to a chain of reasoning whicli has misled scholars ever since.
53 Ed. Jones, ßedne opmo de rentpmrbu, p. 191. This reference 1 owe to the anonymous reader for Spccdum. "The connection was seen by I'lunimer, ot coiirse: sec llis note on the passase, 2:334.