From Saint Columbanus to Pope Gregory, on the Date of Easter

To the holy lord and father in Christ, the Roman pope, the fairest ornament of the church, a most august flower, as it were, of the whole of withering Europe, a distinguished watchman, as one who enjoys a divine contemplation of purity: I, Bargoma, a poor dove in Christ, send greeting. [a]

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. I am glad to think, holy pope, that it will not seem extravagant to you to be questioned about Easter, according to that song: “Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you” (Deuteronomy 32, verse 7). I am indeed a trifler, and on me may be branded that excellent saying of a certain wise man who, on seeing a certain woman elaborately painted, is reported to have said, “I do not admire the art, but I admire the brow,” since I, who am vile, write to you who are illustrious. Yet, relying on my confidence in your gospel humility, I presume to write to you and to lay on you the matter of my grief. For writing is not in vain when necessity compels one to write, even to one’s betters. [e]

What, then, do you say about Easter on the 21st or 22nd day of the moon, which, with all respect to you, many calculators prove not to be Easter at all, but in truth a time of darkness? For I believe it is not unknown to your efficiency how Anatolius argues, with strong disapproval, about this age of the moon. He was a man of wonderful learning, as Saint Jerome says; Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, put extracts from his writings into his Church History, and Saint Jerome praised this same work of his on Easter in his catalog. Against the Rimarii of Gaul, who, as he says, went wrong about Easter, he brought in a fearful sentence, saying: “Certainly, if the rising of the moon is delayed until the end of two watches, which marks midnight, light does not overcome darkness, but darkness overcomes light. And this is certainly not allowable at the Easter festival, that any part of the darkness should rule over the light, since the solemnity of the Lord’s resurrection is light, and light has no fellowship with darkness. “And if the moon has not shone out until the third watch, there is no doubt that the moon has risen on its 21st or 22nd day, on which a true paschal offering cannot be made. For those who lay down that a true Easter can be celebrated at this age of the moon not only cannot confirm it by the authority of divine Scripture, but also incur the guilt of sacrilege and stubbornness and the peril of their souls, since they affirm that the true Light, which rules over all darkness, can be offered while darkness still has any rule.” [f]

Also, in the book of holy doctrine we read: “Easter, that is, the solemnity of the Lord’s resurrection, cannot be celebrated before the beginning of the spring equinox is past, that is, so that it does not come before the spring equinox.” This rule Victorius has certainly overstepped in his cycle, and in doing so he has already brought error into Gaul, or, to speak less boldly, has confirmed an error of long standing. For how can either of these things stand with reason? Either the Lord’s resurrection would be celebrated before his passion, which is absurd even to think of; or the seven days sanctioned by the Lord’s command in the law, the only days within which it is commanded that the Lord’s Passover may lawfully be eaten, and which are counted from the 14th day of the moon to the 20th, would be overstepped against law and right. For a moon on its 21st or 22nd day is out of the realm of light, since at that age it rises after midnight; and when darkness overcomes light, it is said to be impious to keep the solemnity of light. Why then do you, who are so wise, the brilliant lights of whose sacred genius are spread through the world as in ancient times, why do you keep a dark Easter? I confess I wonder that this error of Gaul, as though it were right and lawful, has not long ago been swept away by you; unless perhaps I am to suppose, what I can hardly believe, that since you plainly have not corrected it, it has your approval.

In another way, however, your expertness may be more honorably excused: if, fearing to expose yourself to the charge of novelty in the manner of Hermagoras, you are content with the authority of your predecessors, and especially of Pope Leo. [m]

Do not, I beg you, in such a question trust to humility alone or to gravity, which are often deceived. In this problem a living dog is far better than a dead lion (Ecclesiastes 9, verse 4). For a living saint may correct what had not been corrected by another who came before him. For know that by our teachers and the ancient Irish, who were philosophers and very wise reckoners in drawing up calculations, Victorius was not accepted, but was held more worthy of ridicule or of pardon than as carrying any authority. So to me, a timid stranger rather than one who pretends to learning, give the support of your judgment, and do not disdain to send us quickly the vote of your placability to calm this storm that surrounds us. For after the many authors I have read, I am not satisfied with that one sentence of those bishops who say only, “We ought not to keep the Passover with the Jews.” This is what Bishop Victor said long ago; but none of the Easterns accepted his invention. But this is what the benumbing backbone of Dagon drinks in; this is what the dotage of error drinks in. [n]

Of what worth, I ask, is this sentence, so frivolous and so crude, resting as it does on no testimony of Holy Scripture: “We ought not to keep the Passover with the Jews”? What has it to do with the question? Are the reprobate Jews to be thought to keep the Passover now, when they are without a temple, outside Jerusalem, and when Christ, who was foreshadowed of old, has been crucified by them? Or can it rightly be supposed that the 14th day of the moon for the Passover was their own appointment? Is it not rather to be acknowledged as God’s, who alone knew clearly with what mysterious meaning the 14th day of the moon was chosen for the passage out of Egypt? Perhaps to wise men like you this may be somewhat clearer than to others. As for those who raise this objection, though without authority, let them reproach God for not guarding beforehand against the stubbornness of the Jews by commanding them in the law to keep nine days of unleavened bread, if he would not have us keep the Passover with them, so that the beginning of our solemnity should not go beyond the end of theirs. For if Easter is to be celebrated on the 21st or 22nd day, nine days will be counted from the 14th to the 22nd, that is, seven ordered by God and two added by men. But if men are allowed to add anything of their own accord to a divine decree, I ask whether this may not seem opposed to that sentence of Deuteronomy: “Look,” he says, “the word which I give you, you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deuteronomy 4, verse 2).

But in writing all this more forwardly than humbly, I know that I have entangled myself in a Euripus of presumption, hard to get through, and perhaps I lack the skill to steer my way out of it. Nor does it befit our place or rank that anything should be put forward by way of discussion to your great authority, or that my Western letters should absurdly press you, who sit lawfully on the seat of the apostle and key-bearer Peter, on the subject of Easter. But in this matter you should consider not so much worthless me as the many teachers, both departed and now living, who confirm what I have pointed out, and imagine that you are holding a conversation with them. For know that I open my thick-lipped mouth dutifully, though it may be incoherently and extravagantly. [p]

So it is for you either to excuse or to condemn Victorius, knowing that if you approve him, it will be a question of faith between you and Jerome, whom I have mentioned, since he approved Anatolius, who is opposed to Victorius; so that whoever follows the one cannot accept the other. So let your vigilance take care that, in approving the faith of one of these two authors, who are opposed to each other, there is no discord between you and Jerome when you pronounce your opinion, so that we are not hemmed in on every side, not knowing whether to agree with you or with him. Spare the weak in this matter, so that you do not display the scandal of disagreement. For I frankly acknowledge to you that anyone who goes against the authority of Saint Jerome will be rejected as a heretic among the churches of the West; for they fit their faith to him in every respect, without hesitation, in all that concerns the divine Scriptures. But let this be enough about Easter.

But I ask what your judgment is about those bishops whom you have written of as simoniacal, and whom the writer Gildas calls pests. Should communion be held with them? For there are known to be many such in this province, which makes the matter more serious. Or what of others who were defiled while they were deacons, and are afterward elected to the rank of bishop? For there are some whom we know to have scruples of conscience on these grounds, and in conferring with our littleness about them they wished to know for certain whether they may serve without peril after such transgressions: that is, either after buying their rank for money, or after adultery while they were deacons. I mean, however, concealed adultery with their dependents, which our teachers count no less criminal. [q]

As a third question, tell me in reply, I beg you, if it is not troublesome, what should be done about those monks who, for a closer sight of God or inflamed by longing for a more perfect life, go against their vows and leave the places of their first conversion, and, against the will of their abbots, driven by the fervor of monks, either go free or flee to the deserts. The author Vennianus asked Gildas about these, and Gildas answered him most elegantly; yet one who is anxious to learn always grows in greater fear. These things, and much more that the brevity of a letter does not allow, might well have been asked more humbly and more clearly face to face, except that weakness of body and the care of my fellow pilgrims keep me bound at home, though I long to come to you, so as to draw from that spiritual vein of a living well, and from the living water of knowledge that flows from heaven and springs up to eternal life. [s]

And if my body were to follow my mind, Rome would once more be in danger of being itself despised. For we read in the account of the learned Jerome how certain people once came to Rome from the farthest bounds of the Heuline coast, and then, wonderful to tell, sought something else outside of Rome. So I too, saving my reverence for the ashes of the saints, would seek out longingly not Rome but you. For though I confess that I am not wise, but thirsty, I would do this very thing if I had time and opportunity.

I have read your book containing the Pastoral Rule, short in style, long in teaching, full of mysteries, and I acknowledge it to be a work sweeter than honey to one in need. So I beg you, give me, who am thirsty for what is yours, your works on Ezekiel, which, as I have heard, you have worked out with wonderful genius. I have read the six books of Jerome on that prophet; but he has not explained the middle part. But if you will do me the favor, send to the city for me some of your remaining writings: namely, the concluding expositions of one book, and the Song of Songs from the place where it says, “I will go to the mountain of myrrh and to the hill of frankincense,” to the end, treated with short comments, either of others or your own. And I beg you to explain the whole obscurity of Zechariah and to make its hidden meaning plain, so that Western blindness may thank you for it. I make unreasonable demands and ask to be told great things; who can fail to see it? But it is also true that you have great things, and you know well that from a little, less should be put out to use, and from much, more. [v]

Let love move you to write in reply; do not let the roughness of my letter keep you from explaining, since it is my way of expressing myself that has been at fault, and in my heart I mean to pay you due honor. It was for me to stir you up, to question, to request; it is for you not to refuse what you have freely received, to put your talent out to use, to give the bread of teaching to the one who asks, as Christ commands. Peace to you and yours. Forgive my forwardness, blessed pope, in writing so boldly; and I beg you in your holy prayers to our common Lord to pray for me, a most vile sinner. I think it quite unnecessary to commend to you my people, whom the Savior judges fit to be received, as they walk in his name. And if, as I have heard from your holy Candidus, you should be inclined to answer that things confirmed by ancient custom cannot be changed: error is plainly ancient; but the truth that rebukes it is always more ancient still.