The Celtic and Roman Traditions: Conflict and Consensus in the Early Medieval Church

The Celtic and Roman Traditions This page intentionally left blank The Celtic and Roman Traditions Conflict and Con...

Author: Caitlin Corning

206 downloads 1024 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Celtic and Roman Traditions

This page intentionally left blank

The Celtic and Roman Traditions Conflict and Consensus in the Early Medieval Church

CAITLIN CORNING

THE CELTIC AND ROMAN TRADITIONS

© Caitlin Corning, 2006. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. First published in 2006 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN™ 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 and Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England RG21 6XS Companies and representatives throughout the world. PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–7299–6 ISBN-10: 1–4039–7299–0 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Corning, Caitlin. The Celtic and Roman traditions : conflict and consensus in the early medieval church / Caitlin Corning. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1–4039–7299–0 1. Celtic Church. 2. Church history—Middle Ages, 600–1500. 3. Church controversies—Europe—History—To 1500. I. Title. BR748.C67 2006 74⬘.02—dc22

2006044784

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: September 2006 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America.

For my mother Corlee Corning and in loving memory of my father Robert Corning


Contents

List of Maps

viii

List of Illustrations

ix

List of Abbreviations

x

Preface 1. Introduction

xii 1

2. Columbanus and the Merovingian Church

19

3. Columbanian Monasticism after 615 AD

45

4. The British Church and the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms to c.620

65

5. The Irish Church to 640

81

6. The Irish Church after 640

95

7. Iona and Northumbria, 634–65

112

8. Northumbria and Anglo-Saxon England, 665–735

130

9. Iona, the Picts, and the British

150

10. Conclusion

169

Appendix 1: Easter Dates

182

Notes

191

Bibliography

232

Index

251

List of Maps

2.1 4.1 5.1

Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy Britain Ireland

23 66 90

List of Illustrations

Tables 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 6.1 7.1 7.2 9.1 9.2 9.3

Comparison of Easter tables Simplified Merovingian family tree Comparative Easter dates, 590–608 Sunset and moonrise, Paris, France, March/April 2005 Comparative Easter dates, 620–41 Comparative Easter dates, 680–89 Northumbrian family tree Comparative Easter dates, 661–66 Ceolfrid’s description of Biblical dates Comparative Easter dates, 710–23 Comparative Easter dates, 765–70

8 24 25 26 52 110 113 124 159 163 166

Figure 1.1

Phases of the moon

6

List of Abbreviations

AC ABR Adomnán, VC Anonymous, VC ASE ATig AU AVC Bede, HE Bede, PVC Bede, Reckoning BrT CCC CCH CHR CMCS

Columbanus, Ep(s) EHR EME Gregory, History HB JBS JEH JMH JML JRSAI JTS

Annales Cambriae American Benedictine Review Life of Columba Life of Cuthbert Anglo-Saxon England Annals of Tigernach Annals of Ulster Anonymous Life of Cuthbert Ecclesiastical History of the English People Prose Life of Cuthbert The Reckoning of Time Brut y Tywysogyon Canterbury Cathedral Chronicle Collectio Canonum Hibernensis Catholic Historical Review Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies (nos. 1–25), continued as Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies (nos. 26–) Epistles English Historical Review Early Medieval Europe History of the Franks/Ten Books of History Historia Brittonum Journal of British Studies Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of Medieval History Journal of Medieval Latin Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Journal of Theological Studies

List of Abbreviations MGH:SRM NH PRIA PSAS SHR Stephanus, VW

xi

Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum Northern History Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Scottish Historical Review Life of Wilfrid

Preface

Since the 1970s and then especially with the publication of Kathleen Hughes’ groundbreaking article, “The Celtic Church: Is This a Valid Concept?” scholars have been reassessing much of what was understood about the “Celtic Church.”1 In recent decades, many new theories have been proposed and scholars have abandoned the term Celtic Church believing it to be too closely associated with inaccurate ideas. At the same time, the Celtic Church remains a fashionable topic outside of academic circles. A quick search of the internet produces an abundance of links to Celtic spirituality seminars, sites detailing the “history” of the Celtic Church and Celtic Christian denominations. The number of books published each year by popular presses on these topics demonstrates that the interest in all things Celtic remains high. Yet, this curiosity with Celtic history and culture has done little to advance an accurate understanding of the early medieval Celtic tradition among nonspecialists, since the popular books rarely reflect recent scholarship and depend instead upon other nonspecialists or out-of-date scholarly articles and books. This book is a short introduction to current scholarly opinion and debate about some aspects of the Celtic tradition for the nonspecialist. The focus of this study is the interactions between the Celtic and Roman traditions in Merovingian Gaul, Lombard Italy, and the British Isles during the period of the Easter controversy. From 600 to 768, one of the defining issues between these two groups was the conflict over how to correctly calculate the date of Easter. While not the sole concern of this study, the Easter controversy provides the chronological framework and a foundation upon which to analyze the ways in which these two traditions influenced and transformed each other. This study has three main goals. First, it provides the nonspecialist with a more accurate understanding of aspects of the Celtic tradition, both its unique characteristics and the many areas of similarity it shared with the broader early medieval Church. Second, the Easter controversy provides an excellent case study for how the early medieval Church in the West solved disputes over divergent practices. Third, this book should allow the reader

Preface

xiii

to gain a better understanding of the available primary sources and the complexities involved in using these documents to reconstruct the period. This book assumes some knowledge of medieval history and an understanding of basic Christian theology, but no specialized training in the topic. Due to the intended audience, all quotes have been translated into English, as have the titles for most of the primary documents. Englishlanguage secondary sources have been used whenever possible. In addition, to aid the reader, I have departed occasionally from scholarly norms. For instance, it is the custom to list lunar days with Roman numerals (luna xiv). However, since many readers may be unaccustomed to working with these, all lunar dates have been converted to Arabic numbers. Along these same lines, more popular versions of personal names have been included: Columba rather than Colum Cille, Edwin rather than Eadwine, and Brunhild instead of Brunechildis. In addition, in the bibliography, the titles of most primary documents have been translated into English to match the usage within the text. As with all projects of this sort, there are numerous people to whom I am much in debt. First to Drs. Christina Roseman and Alberto Ferreiro who nurtured my initial interest in medieval studies and have supported me throughout my career. Ian Wood, Clare Stancliffe, Thomas CharlesEdwards, and the anonymous reader reviewed draft chapters and provided invaluable criticism and suggestions. My thanks also to Seth Martin, my student assistant, who went well above the call of duty for this project; to Megan Weber and John Knox who designed the maps and charts; and to my students who read draft chapters and asked important questions. Last, but certainly not least, my sincere thanks to my family and friends who over the years have patiently listened to my complaints about Bede and have learned much more about the Easter controversy than they ever could have imagined.


Chapter 1 Introduction

Ask many people browsing through popular books on Celtic Christianity to describe the Celtic Church and several well-known ideas will probably emerge. They might state, for instance, that the Celtic Church did not acknowledge papal authority and was less authoritarian and bureaucratic than the Roman Church because it was guided by holy abbots, rather than bishops. Depending on their interests, they might add that it allowed women more power than was customary at the time, it was environmentally friendly, it was continually influenced by native paganism, or that the Irish had a special link with the spiritual realm. Simply stated, most would agree that the Roman and Celtic Churches were inherently dissimilar and in conflict throughout the Middle Ages until the Roman Church conquered and suppressed the Celtic tradition.1 Ask most medievalists who specialize in the churches of the Celtic-speaking lands from the sixth through eighth centuries this same question and a remarkably different picture emerges. While there were powerful and influential abbots in the Irish Church, there were also important bishops.2 In addition, the churches in the British Kingdoms—usually an area included in the term “Celtic Church”—were organized on an episcopal model closely resembling that used elsewhere in Europe. Those in Celticspeaking regions acknowledged and respected the papacy as much as any area did at this time and the Irish and British were no more pro-women, pro-environment, or even spiritual than the rest of the Church.3 Contrary to popular opinion, research suggests that the churches in the Celtic-speaking lands were not united in opposition to the “Roman” Church. The early medieval Church was very diverse. Liturgies, monastic rules, and other issues of interest to Christians were not monolithic, but

2


varied regionally. Just as there are recognizable differences in the Catholic Church in America and France today, not all the traditions in Ireland, Merovingian Gaul, and Visigothic Spain were identical. There were, to use modern terms, “local theologies” or “micro-Christendoms.”4 This does not mean, however, that Christians identified themselves as members of a Church separate from and in opposition to Rome; it is simply a reflection of the diversity of local practices throughout Europe at this time.5 Christians in the West were united in major aspects of theology and the doctrinal decisions of the early ecumenical councils. In the Celtic-speaking areas, people would not have thought to identify themselves as part of the “Celtic Church.” Likewise, their counterparts in Merovingian Gaul or Visigothic Spain would not have spoken about the “Continental Church.” Rather all considered themselves part of the universal Church whose differences lay solely in cultural locality.

Brief Overview of Modern Celtic Christianity Historians of the modern Celtic phenomenon have identified at least three main branches of thought that have influenced the more fashionable notions of the Celtic Church today.6 The first began during the Reformation when the Church of England broke from Rome and the split needed justification. One way to do this was to identify a strand of Christianity more indigenous to the British Isles, one which was in opposition to the papacy, and of course, was proto-Protestant in thought. Therefore, the Church of England was not a new institution, but a restoration of the true Church in the British Isles.7 This same appeal to a pure tradition, separate from Rome, influenced the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh in the postReformation period as well.8 A second strand came from Romanticism and its idea of the “noble savage” and focus on primitivism.9 As Europe became industrialized, some intellectuals looked back at what had been lost to modernization. Not only did they see examples of primitive, isolated cultures in Africa or the East, but in the Irish and Scottish Highlanders as well.10 Separated from the intricacies of Irish culture, these men imagined that the Irish led simple, unchanging lives influenced by superstitious beliefs. This is why historians could use nineteenth-century prayers or hymns as evidence for the spirituality of the sixth and seventh centuries. In the uncultured Irish or Scottish peasant it was as though one could gain a glimpse of a distant, unobtainable past.

Introduction

3

Coupled with this assumption was the notion that each national/ethnic group had its own unchanging characteristics. Within this, the Celts were characterized as “emotional, visionary and non-rational” in addition to being “spiritual, impractical, rural, natural, and poetic.”11 Thus, their mystical nature, combined with living on the very periphery of Europe, ensured that the Celts had nurtured a version of Christianity that was simplistic and spiritual, rejecting all dogmatic or authoritarian structures. In its essence then, Celtic Christianity was in opposition to the rationalist, authoritarian Rome and fought continually to maintain its distinctive form of Christianity.12 Although finally subjugated by the Roman Church in the seventh century, the true spirituality of the Celts survived within the innermost natures of all those born in the Celtic lands. Anyone familiar with some of the popular writings about the Celtic Church should recognize the major influence these motifs have had on the modern construct of “Celtic spirituality.” Many books on this topic draw from a broad range of texts with no sense of chronological or ideological development. In any other area of European spirituality, this approach would be dismissed as totally inappropriate. For example, a historian could not use the novels and speeches of nineteenth- and twentieth-century France as evidence for the attitudes of Christians in early medieval Gaul or to argue for an unbroken line of spirituality within France from Martin of Tours (d. 397) to present day. Yet, this seems to be the methodology that underlies the assertion that the spirituality in the Celtic lands has remained unchanged from Pelagius (c.400) to George MacDonald (1824–1905) to today. A third major area that has added to the popular notion of the Celtic Church is the increasingly emotional focus of modern, mostly Protestant churches as they attempt to reform worship and outreach to be more attractive to popular culture.13 Caught up with this are elements of the New Age movement, neo-paganism and post-modernism.14 Within all of these groups, there is a longing to restore something that seems to have been “lost” in modern life combined with the hope that in the past people “got it right.” Therefore, for some, the Celtic Church becomes the embodiment of the dreams of these groups—whether it is the hope that this tradition gave women equality, was able to access special layers of spirituality, or continued and preserved pagan traditions.15 But these ideas reflect modern hopes, not the reality of the early medieval Church in the Celtic lands or the concerns of those living during that time.16 Essentially, popular Celtic spirituality in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries tells us much more about the spiritual desires of people today than those in the early medieval world.

4


Definitions Due to the huge separation between popular and specialist conceptions, many scholars have suggested that the term “Celtic Church” should be eliminated altogether.17 The general consensus is that this phrase is so associated with inaccurate ideas that its usage only furthers misconceptions. Others want to reserve “Celtic” solely to define a language grouping and nothing else.18 They argue against any unifying characteristics that set Celtic culture apart. As this study focuses on the interaction between the “Celtic” and “Roman” traditions in the period of the Easter controversy, it is important to define these terms carefully. When “Celtic tradition” is used in this book, it refers to a set of shared practices found both in the Irish and British Churches, not one or the other exclusively. In other words, there was a separate Irish tradition of ideas and practices that was not identical to the British. This study, however, focuses on what they had in common and was distinctive from the rest of the Church in Western Europe. On the other hand, the term “Roman tradition” refers to those communities who were united in their acceptance of a set of practices also used in Rome. In c.600, this included, among others, the churches in Merovingian Gaul and portions of Lombard Italy along with the kingdom of Kent in Anglo-Saxon England. Just as with the Celtic tradition, the Roman tradition was in no way a monolith. The Lombard and Merovingian Churches were not identical to each other or to that in Kent. It is important to remember that all those adhering to the Celtic and Roman traditions acknowledged the special role of the papacy, so these terms do not distinguish between those who honored the bishop of Rome and those who did not. As will be discussed, the papacy’s relationship with many church communities in the seventh century was quite complex.19

Easter Dating While a variety of different aspects of the early medieval Church will be discussed in this book, it seems appropriate to clarify some of the most important ideas and concepts at the outset. First, from the late sixth to early eighth centuries, it is clear from the primary source material that the most divisive debate between those from the Celtic and Roman traditions centered on the dating of Easter. The basic rule for finding the date of Easter is simple: it is to fall on the Sunday following the first full moon after

Introduction

5

the spring equinox.20 On the other hand, attempting to predict the date of Easter from year to year is a complicated process because it requires the intercalculation of the lunar and solar calendars to determine the date and day of the week on which the full moon will occur, and from that, the date of Easter Sunday.21 Although Easter dating involves many complex calculations, there are only a few issues that need to be comprehended in order to understand how the debate over the correct date of Easter unfolded in the seventh and eighth centuries. Two of the most important aspects were the date of the equinox and the range of lunar dates on which it was permissible for Easter to occur. As mentioned, in order to calculate the date of Easter it is necessary to know when the vernal or spring equinox occurs. Unfortunately, in the lateantique world, different groups argued for alternative dates. In addition, due to the problems with the Julian calendar, the date of the equinox moved earlier in the calendar year as time went on.22 By the early first century, it actually occurred on March 22/23. By the Council of Nicaea (325), it had moved to March 20 and by the early eighth century to March 17.23 Thus, the actual equinox was moving further out of sequence with the ecclesiastical one. At first, the ancient Church believed that the equinox fell on March 25. This date then became symbolically important. Many Church fathers speculated that God had created the sun and the moon on this date when light and darkness were in balance.24 In addition, it was maintained that the annunciation by the Archangel Gabriel to Mary that she was to be the mother of the Messiah occurred on March 25.25 Nine months later, on the winter solstice or December 25, Christ was born. These dates were not fixed because of historical accuracy, but due to their symbolic meaning. Before the vernal equinox, there are more hours of darkness than light. Then on the night when darkness and light are in balance, the Messiah was conceived. The Incarnation was also seen as the beginning of a new creation where Christ, the new Adam, would heal the world. On the longest night of the year, the winter solstice, Christ, the Savior, the Light of the World, was born. Placing Easter in relation to March 25 would complete the cycle. Therefore, although it might have been astronomically inaccurate, some maintained that the ecclesiastical equinox should continue to be observed on March 25 since this was the date recognized by the early Church. However, by the early third century, Alexandria recalculated the equinox to March 21, as this date more closely corresponded to astronomical data. During the controversy over Easter dating in the seventh and eighth centuries, those following Easter tables with the March 21 equinox could turn to the Council of Nicaea (325) for support since this ecumenical council had upheld the customs of Alexandria. Rome itself also had made the change to recognizing March 21 as the equinox in the fourth century.26

6


Another major issue that caused conflict during the seventh century was the lunar limits or the days of the moon on which Easter could be celebrated. Lunar dates are usually designated by the term luna and the day of the cycle, such as luna 12 for the twelfth day of the lunar month or luna 17 for the seventeenth day of the month. Each cycle of the moon is 29.56 days, however, those calculating Easter counted not from the new moon; but the first day the moon was visible. This meant that the full moon occurred on luna 14. As mentioned, Easter falls on the Sunday following the first full moon (luna 14) after the spring equinox. Since the full moon can fall on any day of the week and Easter must be on a Sunday, there is a seven-day span in which Easter may occur. For instance, if the full moon fell on a Tuesday, then Easter would fall on luna 19. If the full moon fell on a Monday, Easter would occur on luna 20. The moon cycle helps to illustrate this idea (figure 1.1). There was disagreement as to whether Easter could actually be celebrated on luna 14 if this was a Sunday. Some argued that luna 14 was an acceptable date for Easter and thus employed an lunar range of 14–20; in

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday Thursday

Friday

Saturday

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

luna 14 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

New moon

First quarter

Figure 1.1 Phases of the moon

Full moon

Last quarter

Introduction

7

other words, Easter should be celebrated on a Sunday between the fourteenth and the twentieth days of the moon. Other groups rejected this and so employed alternative sets of lunar ranges. Thus, even if these groups had agreed on the date of the equinox, they might still disagree regarding whether the correct date of Easter should fall between luna 14–20 or some other range of dates.

Easter Tables The early Church in the West appears to have relied on letters sent from Rome or other bishops to announce the date of Easter each year. As the Church expanded geographically, these letters often did not reach outlying areas in time. Therefore Easter tables were invented. A table could list Easter dates far into the future so every church would know when to celebrate. Unfortunately, by the mid-sixth century there were a number of tables in use in Western Europe, all of which differed in how they calculated the date of Easter, thus often giving conflicting dates.27 The three which most concerned Western Europe in the period under discussion were the Dionysian, the Victorian, and the Celtic-84 tables. The table which eventually won unanimous support in the West was composed by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 AD.28 He adapted the basic principles in use at Alexandria. His table was based on a nineteen-year cycle in which the solar dates of the full moon before Easter rotated in a nineteen-year sequence. However, the actual dates of Easter repeated only every 532 years.29 Dionysius dated the equinox to March 21 and believed that Easter should fall on the Sunday between luna 15 and 21.30 In addition, the Easter or Paschal full moon as it was called needed to occur after the equinox as well. Therefore, the earliest calendar date for Easter was March 22 and the latest day was April 25 (table 1.1). Dionysius calculated the Easter dates for ninety-five years (19⫻5) from 532 to 626. In the early seventh century, his table was continued for the years 627 to 721. At that time, Bede, an Anglo-Saxon monk, using Dionysius’ principles, calculated the full 532-year cycle. The second popular table was the 532-year table composed by Victorius in c.457 AD.31 Pope Hilarus (461–68), while still an archdeacon, commissioned Victorius to create a more accurate table to be used in Rome. Like Dionysius, Victorius used a March 21 equinox, but he believed that Easter should fall between the sixteenth and twenty-second day of the moon, luna 16–22. Again differing from Dionysius, Victorius argued that the Paschal full moon could fall before the equinox.32 His limits for Easter were March 22 through April 24 (table 1.1). Due to computational problems, in some

8


Table 1.1 Comparison of Easter tables Table

Years

Equinox

Earliest Luna 14 Date

Lunar Limits

Earliest Easter Date

Latest Easter Date

Dionysian Victorian

95 532

March 21 March 21

March 21 March 18

Luna 15–21 Luna 16–22 (Latin) Luna 15–21 (Greek)

March 22 March 22

April 25 April 24

Celtic-84

84

March 25

March 21

Luna 14–20

March 26

April 23

years Victorius listed both “Latin” and “Greek” dates; the Greek dates were calculated using luna 15–21 and the Latin dates luna 16–22. This is further complicated by the fact that at times, the luna dates in Victorius’ table were incorrect by one day. This means that although he thought his Latin dates reflected a luna 16–22 range, in reality he was using luna 15–21. Therefore, if one wished to celebrate with the Greek part of the Church, it might be necessary to use the Latin, not Greek dates. Those using the Greek dates on Victorius’ table would actually be following an Easter used nowhere in Europe.33 This quickly negated Rome’s reason for commissioning the table because confusion arose over which date to follow.34 It is known for example, that in 590 Tours observed Easter on the Latin date of April 2, while other areas of Gaul celebrated the Greek March 26 (table 2.2).35 The oldest of the three tables usually is referred to as the Insular or Celtic eighty-four year Paschal cycle (Celtic-84).36 Uncertainty surrounds its origins, but it was possibly composed in Gaul by Sulpicius Severus in the late fourth or early fifth century.37 It has “Celtic” in the title, not because historians assume that a Celt composed it, but because by the time the controversy surrounding this table occurred, it was primarily used in Celtic-speaking areas. This table followed an 84-year cycle and the older March 25 equinox.38 Its lunar limits were luna 14–20 and while Easter had to occur after the equinox, this was not true for the Paschal full moon that could fall as early as March 21. This combination of factors produced an Easter range of March 26–April 23 (table 1.1). There are also problems with this table because approximately every sixty-three years the lunar dates listed in the table advance one day ahead of the actual moon.39 Therefore after about 150 years, if the age of the moon on Easter was luna 17, the Celtic table would list this as luna 19—two full days off. This led to additional discrepancies between the three tables.

Introduction

9

Practical Issues in the Easter Controversy The reason finding the correct date of Easter was critical to ecclesiastics in the early Middle Ages is twofold. The first is practical. The date for Easter is used to determine the start of Holy Week, Ash Wednesday, and the beginning of the Lent.40 It also is critical in finding the dates for the Feast of the Ascension and the Pentecost, which occur six and seven weeks after Easter, respectively. Therefore, fourteen weeks of the liturgical calendar are calculated from the date of Easter.41 This would be exacerbated by Easter dates that could be up to four weeks apart. If one table listed March 26 as Easter, then Lent would begin on February 8 and Pentecost Sunday would be on May 14. If a competing table identified April 23 as Easter, Lent would start on March 8 and Pentecost would be celebrated on June 11. Therefore for eighteen weeks, the ecclesiastical calendar would be out of sequence. This means that the high feast/fast days would contradict as well as the readings for Mass and the daily prayer cycle. During Lent, people were to abstain from meat and dairy products, eat only one meal a day, and undertake certain penances. In addition, for married couples, sexual intercourse was often frowned upon. All this can be contrasted to the celebrations after Easter when there were few dietary restrictions, the normal meal schedule returned, and marital relations were allowed. It is easy to imagine tempers flaring over whether it was acceptable or not to eat meat, especially after waiting seven weeks for the opportunity. Bede points out that at the Northumbria court, part of which followed the Dionysian table and the other the Celtic-84 before 664, some would be celebrating Easter, while the rest were still in the Lenten fast.42 Imagine a present-day church congregation where some of the members thought it was Easter and the rest believed it was still four weeks away. In addition to the internal conflict within Christian communities, as the seventh-century Church was involved in missions and evangelism, the fact that it was unable to determine the date of its most important festival and a period of fourteen weeks of fasting and celebrations undermined its claim to be the custodian of truth and knowledge. It is interesting that this same point is found in a statement issued by the World Council of Churches in 1997 on the need for all Christians to celebrate the same Easter. It argues that “by celebrating this feast of feasts on different days, the churches give a divided witness to this fundamental aspect of the apostolic faith, compromising their credibility and effectiveness in bringing the Gospel to the World.”43

Theological Issues in the Easter Controversy Determining the date of Easter is also important in terms of theology. Christians celebrate Easter in remembrance of the death and resurrection of

10


Christ because they believe that these events ensured forgiveness of sin and salvation. The exact calendar date of Easter is not contained in the New Testament, though it is clear that Christ’s death occurred on or directly after the Jewish Passover. According to Scripture, Christ rose from the dead three days later on Sunday.44 Since Christians wish to recreate as closely as possible the environment in which the first Easter happened, it is celebrated on the Sunday after Passover. Christ is also viewed as the symbolic Passover lamb, since it was his death that released humanity from the penalty of sin, just as the blood of the lamb at Passover saved the Hebrews in Egypt.45 Due to these associations with Passover, Christians believed that the date of Easter should be calculated using in part the requirements for the date of Passover as outlined in the Old Testament. In Exodus, it states that Passover should occur in the first month of the Jewish lunar calendar (March/April) on the full moon or luna 14.46 Thus the first full moon after the spring equinox is always the date of Passover. Unlike Easter, Passover can happen on any day of the week. As mentioned, Christians disagreed whether Easter could be celebrated on Passover itself if this was a Sunday, but all agreed that Easter could not occur before luna 14. To allow Easter to take place before Passover would be to violate the precepts ordained by God and undermine the idea of Christ’s sacrifice for the salvation of humanity.47 The Old Testament also mandates the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is celebrated for seven days following Passover. The lunar range, the days after the full moon on which Easter can be celebrated, was limited to seven days in imitation of this Feast. As Christ is the “bread of life,” this also appeared to be a symbolic Gospel fulfillment of earlier Old Testament law.48 Unfortunately, the Scriptures give conflicting dates regarding this Feast.49 Exodus and Leviticus state that it should be celebrated for seven days after Passover (luna 15–21).50 However, Deuteronomy implies that this Feast begins on Passover (luna 14–20).51 Therefore both those who used the Celtic-84 and the Dionysian table could claim that their lunar range agreed with biblical precepts. For all those attempting to find the date of Easter, the relationship between the positions of the sun, moon, and earth also needed symbolically to reflect correct theology. It was argued that Easter must occur after the equinox when there are more hours of light than darkness, just as Christ, the Light of the World, overcame the darkness of sin and death for our salvation.52 Easter celebrations occur after luna 14 when, from earth, the full moon is past, but the moon’s light is more fully visible from the sun. This reminds believers of Christ’s life on earth and also his resurrection. Just as the moon spins to become more fully illuminated by the sun, Christ sits at the right hand of the Father and reflects the glory of God.53 Another

Introduction

11

interpretation is that the first phase of the moon to luna 14 symbolizes “the grace of the virtues by which our Lord, appearing in the flesh, illumined the world.”54 As the moon moves past luna 14, this reflects Christ’s resurrection and ascension.55 The moon’s position in relation to the earth and sun also shows the need to move from external things to internal—from the things of the world to matters contemplative. Before luna 14, the moon represents Adam who, as a sinner, is focused on earth. After luna 14, the moon becomes more illuminated by the sun, just as the soul should move toward God. As Augustine states, “all that light of the soul which was inclining to things that are beneath is turned to the things that are above, and is thus withdrawn from the things of the earth; so that it dies more and more to this world, and its life is hid with Christ in God.”56 In addition, Easter needed to happen in the first month of the Jewish year, since that was the month God created the world.57 Christ’s resurrection healed the brokenness caused by the Fall and Christians now have new life in Christ.58 The resurrection happened on the third day because we now live in the third epoch, that of grace.59 This is why Easter occurs in the third week of the first month in the lunar calendar. For those following the Celtic-84 table, any calculation that used a March 21 equinox placed Easter too early and thus symbolically denied that Christ, the Light of the World, needed to conquer death for our salvation. However, the Celtic-84 also had a problem when it allowed Easter to be celebrated on luna 14. Due to the fact that Easter celebrations began the evening before the date listed, some believed this table allowed Easter to begin on luna 13 and thus before the arrival of the full moon.60 As with celebrating before the equinox, this also symbolically denied the need for Christ’s death and resurrection. The supporters of the Dionysian table saw a major problem with the Victorian and Celtic-84 when they placed the Easter or Paschal full moon before the equinox.61 This also symbolically denied the need for Christ’s grace. In addition, the first full moon after the equinox signals the start of the new year. By placing the Easter moon so early, it was possible that Easter might be celebrated in the last month of the year, rather than the first. The Victorian table also allowed Easter to fall on luna 22, the first day of the fourth week of the month, violating the symbolic nature of the third week.

Council of Nicaea The first ecumenical council was held in Nicaea in 325. It ruled that Easter could not be celebrated “with the Jews” on Passover. It also was decided that

12


Christians should not rely on the Jewish calculations for Passover since they sometimes allowed this feast to be observed twice in the same year. When this happened, Christians would celebrate Easter in the last month of the year rather than the first. While separating Easter from the Jewish observances, the council left many questions unanswered since it did not specifically define the date of the equinox or the lunar dates upon which Easter could occur.62 In the early fourth century, the Alexandrian Church advocated lunar limits of 15–21 and a March 21 equinox. They also argued that the Paschal full moon had to occur after the equinox in order to ensure that Easter fell in the first month. Dionysius adopted the Alexandrian principles and claimed, along with others, that Nicaea had actually mandated these criteria.63 Though untrue, those who believed this could accuse the Victorian table of violating Nicaea since it allowed the full moon to fall before the equinox. Furthermore, the Celtic-84 could be seen as contradicting this council because it allowed Easter to take place on luna 14.64 What is clear from the letter sent by the Emperor Constantine with regard to the decisions made at Nicaea was that all agreed the Church should celebrate Easter on the same date. He called it “scandalous” that some would be celebrating Easter while others were still in the Lenten fast. The Church needed to reach a unanimous decision on this issue. Constantine states: we must consider, too, that a discordant judgment in a case of such importance, and respecting [Easter] is wrong. For our Savior has left us one feast in commemoration of the day of our deliverance . . . and he has willed that his Catholic Church should be one, the members of which, however scattered in many and diverse places, are yet cherished by one pervading spirit, that is, by the will of God.65

Therefore, under the authority of an ecumenical council, there could only be one correct day for Easter.

Summary Although constructing an Easter table is complex, there were only three major areas of concern in the seventh and eighth century: the date of the equinox, the range of luna dates on which Easter could be observed, and whether the Paschal full moon could occur before the equinox. These factors, combined with miscalculations in the Celtic-84 and Victorian tables, meant that the three tables did not always list the same date for Easter.

Introduction

13

It is important to understand that the Church believed it was critical that all Christians celebrate Easter on the same day. Part of the reason for this was practical. If the date for Easter did not agree, the Christian calendar would be at variance for up to eighteen weeks. This would affect the readings at Mass, the daily prayers at use in monastic houses, and fasting/feasting. For all the difficulty of having a community trying to use two different calendars, the more significant issues rested on matters of theology. Augustine wrote that the date of Easter had to agree with the Old Testament, New Testament and the rulings of the church councils.66 The true date of Easter would align with all these sources, uphold God’s sovereignty over nature and history, and reinforce humanity’s need for salvation and grace.

Tonsures The primary sources demonstrate that there was some controversy over the Celtic tonsure, or in other words, the style of a cleric’s haircut from approximately the late 620s through the early eighth century. In today’s culture it may seem surprising that there were arguments over how people cut their hair, but it is clear that this issue was a serious one.67 Throughout the cultures of the medieval West, hairstyles were a sign of social status. Kings and warriors had different haircuts than peasants or craftsmen.68 Specific haircuts could also be a part of rituals “that might signify a vow, a sacrifice, mourning, respect, submission.”69 A cleric therefore wore his hair in a specified way that set him apart from the other men in his society. The Roman tonsure is the hairstyle we are all familiar with thanks to Hollywood. Churchmen shaved the top of their head, leaving a bald spot and then shaved their neck creating a symbolic crown of thorns in imitation of Christ’s suffering before his crucifixion. According to tradition, this tonsure was worn by the apostle Peter. One description of the Celtic tonsure comes from a letter by Abbot Ceolfrid (688–716) of Jarrow to Nechtan (706–24/25), king of the Picts, written in c.712.70 He says that “in the front of the forehead it does seem to bear the resemblance to a crown, but when you come to look at the neck, you find that the crown which you expected to see is cut short . . .”71 It has been argued that the top of the Celtic tonsure may have been shaped somewhat like a triangle with the base of the triangle toward the back and the point toward the front.72 The Roman tradition associated the Celtic tonsure with Simon Magus, who is featured in the New Testament book of Acts when he tries to purchase the Holy Spirit.73 Simon also appears in the apocryphal Acts of Peter and the Pseudo-Clement Homilies, among others.74 In patristic and early medieval

14


writings, Simon is portrayed as the father of heretics and the spiritual founder of a heretical pseudo-apostolic succession.75 It is also clear that Peter is established as the archetype in opposition to Simon. In the Ten Books of History, written in the late sixth century by Gregory of Tours, there is a story that Simon Magus helped Nero persecute Peter and Paul. Gregory describes Simon Magus as “a man of immense malice and a master of every form of necromancy.”76 It is thus very interesting that the two competing tonsures would be identified by some medieval writers as those of Peter and Simon Magus. To medieval readers, the larger background of confrontation between Peter and Simon would come to mind instantly. This is not to imply that the tonsure was a heretical concern per se. In the letter just mentioned, Ceolfrid remarks that wearing an alternative tonsure is not an act that would jeopardize a person’s salvation. However, after recommending Peter’s tonsure as the best, he then adds “. . . nor do I consider any tonsure to be rightly judged more abominable and detestable than that worn by [Simon Magus].”77 In other words, while there could be some divergence on tonsures—the East for example used one associated with Paul—the Celtic tonsure was not just at variation with Rome and much of Western Europe, but associated with the arch-heretic. Ceolfrid says that all who follow Christ should wear Peter’s tonsure and abandon that of his enemy. Those who wear the Celtic tonsure are thus tainted by association, even if theologically orthodox. The use of Simon Magus’ tonsure, from the Roman point of view, raised questions concerning a person’s true allegiance to Christ and apostolic tradition. Usually when people abandoned the alternative Celtic dating for Easter, they also adopted the Roman tonsure. This meant that, as the Easter controversy continued through the seventh century and into the eighth, the tonsure became a very visible sign of allegiance to either the Celtic or Roman party.78

Penance and Penitentials In the early Church, all agreed that the act of baptism washed away sin, but there were questions about how to remove the taint of sins committed after this sacrament.79 For minor lapses, the stain of sin was cleansed through prayer and repentance, but this was considered inadequate for major sins such as murder, fornication, or apostasy.80 While some extremists argued that there was no forgiveness possible for such sins, a majority of the Church reached the conclusion that forgiveness could be granted, but only through rigorous repentance. A liturgy developed where the sinner confessed his sins before the congregation and entered the order of penitents.

Introduction

15

As a penitent, a person was not allowed to participate in the Mass and was required to give up all civil and familial responsibilities. In many ways, the status of a penitent was similar to the separation undertaken by monastics in renouncing the world, except that monks were not denied access to the Eucharist. After a set period of time, the penitent was readmitted into the community of the faithful by the laying on of hands by the bishop. However, even after being reconciled to the community, the penitent might not be able to hold public responsibilities.81 The severity of public penance and the fact that it was available only once, meant that there was the temptation to delay this ceremony as long as possible. The same also became true for baptism, with some delaying this ritual until they were on their deathbeds and the possibility of committing major post–baptismal sins became highly unlikely.82 Another model of penance developed in fourth- and fifth-century monastic circles. John Cassian (360–435), a monk from the East who settled in southern Gaul in the early fifth century, argued that sin was like a disease. Just as certain medicines cure specific disorders, an assigned penance should be designed to counteract an identified sin; for theft, the sinner should give alms, for gluttony, fasting would be an appropriate response. Assigning specific penances to counter sin would help to “cure” the sinner and lead to long-term behavioral changes. He perceived sin as hindering spiritual growth just as illness undermines physical well-being.83 This idea of using penance to “heal” the sinner was combined with the monastic practice of daily confession of major and minor sins to a superior or the monastic community. From this merger came the idea of private or public confession with repeatable penances that could be performed as often as was needed for the Christian to reach true spiritual health.84 In the sixth century, an additional development occurred when the earliest surviving penitentials were composed by two ascetics, Gildas in Britain and Finnian in Ireland.85 Penitentials contain lists of sins and the appropriate penance for each. For instance, this is a passage from one written by the Irish abbot Columbanus (d. 615): If any cleric has committed theft . . . if he has done it once or twice, let him first make restitution to his neighbour, and do penance for a whole year on bread and water. If he has made a practice of this, and cannot make restitution, let him do penance three years on bread and water. . . . If any layman has committed theft . . . if he has done it once or twice, let him first restore to his neighbour the loss which he has caused, and let him do penance for a hundred and twenty days on bread and water. But if he has made a practice of stealing often, and cannot make restitution, let him do penance for a year and a hundred and twenty days, and further undertake not to repeat it.86

16


Notice that the penalties for clerics and laymen differ as well as those for single versus repeat offenders. Penalties would also vary depending on age and gender.87 When a Christian confessed his/her sins, the priest/abbot would reference a penitential to determine the appropriate penance.88 The use of penitentials in private confession is referred to as “tariff penance.” A major question for historians is why penitentials appeared in the Celtic tradition.89 There were some precedents in the East. For instance, Basil (c.330–79) of Caesarea had written letters advising specific penances for different sins.90 However, the Celtic penitentials are much more elaborate and help to codify the advice of earlier writers. One influence on the Irish may have been Irish secular law, in which the penalty for crimes was determined by four things: the status of the person who committed the crime, the rank of the victim, the nature of the act, and whether it was a repeat offence.91 On the basis of these criteria, the perpetrator would need to pay an assessed fine to the victim or his/her kin. Our modern notion that all are equal in the eyes of the law would be considered quite odd to the early medieval world. Thus a noble who stole from a bishop would pay a heavier fine than one who committed this same crime against someone of lower rank. To murder a priest was considered worse than killing a peasant, at least as far as the penalties assessed. The above passage from Columbanus’ Penitential demonstrates this same type of system; the priest who committed theft had a longer penance than the layman. The example of Irish secular law may well have played a major factor in the creation of penitentials in the British and Irish Churches, but as historians continue to reassess the complexity of penance in late-Roman and early-medieval Europe, additional factors may come to light.92 It used to be argued that the Irish introduced private penance to the Continent after which public penance quickly disappeared. This is no longer supported by scholars who point out that before the arrival of Irish practices the Continental Church had a variety of public and private penance ceremonies.93 In addition, more public aspects of penance continued to be used even in Ireland and other areas that had adopted penitentials.94 In other churches, it appears that while private forms of penance were utilized, penitentials were not.95 It is important then not to picture the early medieval Church clearly divided between those supporting “tariff penance” and those advocating continued use of public penance. Most churches used a variety of penitential practices depending upon the situation.96 As far as can be determined from the primary sources, the creation of highly structured penitentials with penances listed by the frequency of the sin, gender, age, and rank was a distinctly “Celtic” practice that spread to the rest of the Church. As Irish monks settled on the Continent and in Anglo-Saxon England, they brought their penitential practices with them.

Introduction

17

The popularization of penitentials to assist the confessor in promoting lasting spiritual growth is one of the most important legacies of the Celtic tradition.

Peregrinatio pro Christo or Exile for Christ The term peregrinus is found in Roman law where it means an exile or resident alien, someone without family or kinship ties.97 In patristic writings, this word can refer to someone from abroad or a person undertaking a journey.98 Augustine, for instance, argued that Christians should be exiles or peregrini in this world, strangers in a strange land who long for the time when they can enter the heavenly kingdom.99 The general theme of a life of exile or peregrinatio as popularized by Augustine was incorporated throughout the Church in many different ways. In addition, a peregrinatio could simply refer to a pilgrimage undertaken to a specific holy site or shrine. In this sense, the peregrinus or pilgrim was on a temporary journey with a specific destination in mind. In the Celtic tradition, peregrinatio had at least two additional meanings. First, one of the penances assessed in the penitentials was temporary or permanent exile.100 This may be a reflection of secular law where exile was a punishment for severe crimes.101 More uniquely in the Celtic lands it meant those who voluntarily chose to permanently exile themselves from family and kin in order to be fully dependent upon God, peregrinatio pro Christo.102 This type of ascetic exile or permanent pilgrimage may have been inspired in part by Biblical injunctions.103 For the Irish, there were two major types of peregrinatio: the “lesser exile,” which meant simply leaving one’s local area, but not Ireland itself, and the “superior exile,” which involved traveling overseas.104 Columbanus is an excellent example of an Irishman who undertook both types of peregrinatio. As a young man, he left Leinster and eventually joined the monastery at Bangor in northern Ireland (see map 5.1). Later in life, he left Ireland and traveled to Merovingian Gaul and then Lombard Italy. While the “exile for God” was normally undertaken for personal spiritual devotion, many peregrini did become involved with missions and pastoral care.105 St. Patrick described his life in Ireland as a peregrinatio.106 St. Samson left Wales, first for Cornwall and then Brittany, finally becoming bishop of Dol in northern France.107 Columba traveled to what is today southwestern Scotland to establish the monastery of Iona.108 As will be discussed, both Columbanus and Fursey had significant influence on the Christian communities in a number of geographic areas during their travels.109

18


Conclusion In recent decades, many historians’ contributions have radically transformed what we know about the churches in the Celtic-speaking areas from the late sixth to the mid-eighth centuries. Scholars, who point to the many similarities between the churches in the Celtic-speaking lands and their continental counterparts, have abandoned older theories that the Celts created a “pure” Church in opposition to the more authoritarian Rome. In addition, historians reject the arguments found in many of the popular books on Celtic Christianity that the Celts are by nature inherently spiritual, mystical, irrational, and unchanging. For all this, there were at least four practices used in the Celtic tradition in the late sixth century that diverged from those followed at Rome. These were the table used for determining the date of Easter, the form of tonsure, the use of penitentials, and the popularity of the “exile for Christ.” By far, Easter caused the most controversy in part because this date was critical in determining fourteen weeks of feasts and fasts in the liturgical calendar. However, there were theological considerations as well. The correct date for Easter would fulfill God’s precepts for Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread as outlined in the Old Testament. It would also align with what was known about Christ’s death and resurrection from the New Testament and Church fathers.110 In addition, on Easter, the positions of the sun and the moon should symbolically demonstrate the need for Christ’s saving grace. The supporters of the Celtic-84, Victorian, and Dionysian tables each believed their table was correct and that the others were guilty of violating key principles. As the Easter controversy continued through the seventh century, disagreements over the correct form of tonsure arose as well. Due to the fact that those using the Celtic-84 tended to wear the Celtic tonsure, this haircut became symbolically linked with opposition to the Roman Easter dating from the 620s until the last of the British Churches adopted the Dionysian table in c.770. It was not the tonsure per se that was wrong, but what it represented. As many in the British and Irish Churches undertook peregrinatio for Christ, they came into contact with those who followed the Roman Easter tables and tonsure, triggering the Easter controversy in this period. However, in the midst of this, the Celts helped to create and popularize penitentials. From the fifth century, the Church was in a dynamic period of experimentation and creativity with regard to the most effective ways to deal with sin and repentance. As different churches developed a variety of public and private penances, the Celtic contribution of penitentials added an element in the Church’s emerging practices of confession and penance.

Chapter 2 Columbanus and the Merovingian Church

Although controversies surrounding the date of Easter had occurred from the late second century, the struggle between those who used the Celtic-84 and those supporting the Victorian table first enters the historical sources in late–sixth-century Merovingian Gaul. During this period an Irish monk named Columbanus and his followers left Ireland and settled for a time in the Merovingian kingdom of Burgundy. As they believed that the Celtic-84 was the correct table, and as the Church in Gaul had decided to follow the Victorian table, conflict soon broke out. The sources written by and about Columbanus in the seventh century are essential to any study of the interactions between the Celtic and Roman traditions. These documents demonstrate that the Easter controversy was a critical issue to both the Frankish Church and to Columbanus and his supporters. Columbanus’ actions during this dispute also prove that he respected the pope and the right of the papacy to judge controversial matters. However, like most churchmen of his day, he felt he had the right to criticize and disagree with the papacy if it were in error. As will be discussed, secular and ecclesiastical politics played an important role in the Easter controversy since Columbanus established close ties with the Burgundian court that in turn significantly influenced his interactions with the Merovingian episcopacy. By examining these episodes in detail, it is possible to lay a foundation with which to compare and contrast not only the Roman and Celtic traditions but also the attitudes of the various Celtic churchmen active throughout the period of the Easter controversy.

20


The Sources There are a number of surviving primary documents from the late sixth and early seventh centuries that concern Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy including saints’ Lives, council records, papal letters, the poetry of Venantius Fortunatus (530–609), penitentials, monastic rules, and so on. However, the historical context of the relationship between Columbanus and the ecclesiastical and secular leadership on the Continent is found predominately in four major sources: Jonas’ Life of Columbanus, Columbanus’ letters, Gregory of Tours’ Ten Books of History, and the Chronicle of Fredegar. This is not to imply that the other primary documents of this period are of no assistance, but these four are the most crucial.

Jonas’ Life of Columbanus Approximately twenty-five years after Columbanus’ death, Jonas of Bobbio wrote the Life of Columbanus and his Disciples.1 Jonas was a monk at Bobbio, one of Columbanus’ monastic foundations, and was asked in c.636 by the abbots of Bobbio and Luxeuil to write a Life of their founding saint. In one sense, it is a boon for historians to have a Life composed so soon after Columbanus’ death, while it was still possible for the author to interview those who actually knew him. However, with any Life, facts that might undermine the sanctity of the person in question are only included when the author needs to ensure that his specific interpretation is the one remembered. Thus, Jonas’ job was to provide the “official” version of the controversial events in Columbanus’ life, glossing over conflicts when possible, and if he could not do this, to make sure it was the stance of the Columbanian communities that people remembered. As will be discussed below, there are times when Jonas omitted details or put a certain “spin” on events to ensure that he always portrayed Columbanus in a positive light. Jonas’ second main objective was to reinforce the belief of the Columbanian communities that Columbanus was a saint. The Life both reflects the attitudes present among Columbanus’ supporters and perpetuates those ideas. Therefore it is apologetical in nature. In this way, hagiography is different from biography. A good biography portrays the person as realistically as possible, warts and all. In the end, the person appears much more human than the media or other sources may have depicted him. The purpose of a piece of hagiography is not to have the person appear human, but saintly.2 Therefore, Jonas’ Life is not an “objective” piece of history.

Columbanus and the Merovingian Church

21

Columbanus’ Letters Thankfully, some of Columbanus’ own writings have survived and, while only presenting his point of view, they can be used in combination with the Life to gain a better understanding of the events in question.3 Five of Columbanus’ letters provide information on his interactions with the larger Church. He wrote to the papacy in 600, 604/07, and 613 respectively. In c.603, he sent a letter to the Merovingian bishops at the Council of Chalon, and after his exile from Luxeuil in 610, he composed a letter to the monks he left behind. Recent analysis has emphasized the complex nature of these documents.4 Columbanus’ letters demonstrate a firm understanding of Latin grammar and the techniques of classical rhetoric.5 His choice of word order often enhances his overall point and he was able to use allusions to Scripture and the Church fathers to create intricate, multifaceted arguments.6 Due to this, historians have to carefully scrutinize his letters in order to discover all the implications of each passage. There are a few additional writings by Columbanus that survive, though they do not provide the same type of historical evidence as his letters. These include his two monastic rules, his penitential, some sermons, and perhaps a handful of poems, though their authorship is disputed.7 Admittedly this is not much material, but his writings are critical for reconstructing this period.

Gregory of Tours’ Ten Books of History Another applicable primary document is the Ten Books of History, more popularly known as the History of the Franks, written by Gregory of Tours.8 While Gregory never mentions Columbanus and his History ends in 590— the year Columbanus arrived in Gaul—his work can help the historian reconstruct the political situation in the Merovingian kingdoms. The History provides additional background on some of those mentioned in Jonas’ Life of Columbanus. Gregory had his own underlying agendas and biases that influenced the material he included in the History, and thankfully these do not always align with those of the Columbanian communities. This enables the historian to form a more three-dimensional portrayal of some of the important historical figures from this period.

Chronicle of Fredegar The last available document is the fourth book of the Chronicle of Fredegar.9 Historians are uncertain about the author and date of composition

22


for the Chronicle, though most favor a mid–seventh-century date.10 Some of the material in this text came from the Life of Columbanus by Jonas, but it is apparent the author also used independent sources. As with Gregory’s History, the Chronicle of Fredegar gives the historian additional information on people and events found in the writings from the Columbanian tradition.11

Short Overview of Columbanus’ Life according to the Life of Columbanus Columbanus was born in c.550 in Leinster, Ireland.12 When he was in his twenties, he undertook the “lesser” peregrinatio or exile and eventually entered the monastery at Bangor. He remained there until c.590, when he chose to undertake the superior “exile for God” and journeyed with twelve companions to the Continent.13 Columbanus traveled via Brittany to Gaul, where he eventually came to the court of King Guntram (561–92) or King Childebert II (592–96) of Austrasia and Burgundy (table 2.1).14 It was most likely Childebert who requested that Columbanus remain in his kingdom and granted land to establish a monastery at Annegray (map 2.1). As he gained an increasing number of followers, Columbanus founded two more monasteries, one at Luxeuil and another at Fontaines.15 He apparently remained abbot of all three monasteries during this period and also composed his own monastic rule. Columbanus eventually came into conflict with the king of Burgundy, Theuderic II (596–613), and his grandmother Brunhild in 609–10.16 He criticized Theuderic for keeping concubines and accordingly refused to bless his illegitimate children. According to the Life, Brunhild and Theuderic persecuted Columbanus’ monasteries in retribution. When the dispute escalated, the king sent troops to escort Columbanus to a ship that would take him back to Ireland. However, Columbanus was able to escape and later returned to Luxeuil.17 When Brunhild and Theuderic heard of Columbanus’ return, they sent him into exile once again. Instead of going to Ireland, however, he traveled to the court of Chlothar II (584–629), king of Neustria (table 2.1). There Columbanus obtained escorts and provisions from Chlothar to travel to the Kingdom of Austrasia. Upon his arrival, he was warmly received by King Theudebert (596–612) and given permission to establish a monastery at Bregenz, though he did not remain there for long.18 In 613, Columbanus traveled to Italy and to the court of the Lombard King Agilulf (590–616). As the Life relates, he remained in Milan and attempted to convert the Lombards who followed Arian beliefs. While there, he composed a work

Cologne Nivelles

Tournai St. Bertin St. Amand St. Wandrille Amiens Jumièges Rouen

Corbie

Péronne

Soissons Chelles

Paris Rebais St. Germain Jouarre Orléans

Nantes

Tours

Laon Reims Verdun Toul

Trier

Metz

Faremoutiers

Troyes Remiremont Fontaines Annegray Auxerre Langres Fleury Luxeuil

Bourges

Poitiers

StabloMalmedy

AUSTRASIA

Noyon

N E U S T R I A Lagny BRITTANY

Cambrai

Besançon

Basel

BURGUNDY Solignac

AQUITAINE

= Communities associated with the Columbanian tradition. Not all Columbanian houses indicated on the map.

Clermont

Augsburg

St. Gallen

Bregenz

Chalon Mâcon Geneva

Lyons Vienne

Milan Cahors

LOMBARDY Tortona Bobbio

PY

RE

Arles

NE

ES

MT

PROVENCE

Ravenna

S. Rome

23

Map 2.1 Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy

24


Table 2.1 Simplified Merovingian family tree Chlothar I (511–61) SOISSONS

Sigibert m. Brunhild (561–75)

Charibert (561–67)

Guntram (561–92)

Chiperic I (561–84)

AUSTRASIA

PARIS

BURGUNDY

SOISSONS

Childebert II (575–95)

Chlothar II (584 –629)

AUSTRASIA

NEUSTRIA

(592–96)

(613–29)

BURGUNDY

AUSTRASIA BURGUNDY

Theudebert (596–612)

Theuderic (596–613)

AUSTRASIA

BURGUNDY

Dagobert (623–32)

Charibert II (629–32)

(612–13)

AUSTRASIA

AQUITAINE

AUSTRASIA

(629–39) NEUSTRIA BURGUNDY

Sigibert II (613) AUSTRASIA BURGUNDY

against this heresy. He founded one last monastic community at Bobbio in northern Italy. In 614, he wrote a letter to Chlothar requesting royal protection for Luxeuil, which was duly granted. Columbanus died a year later in November 615.19

Columbanus on Easter Dating One of the major issues throughout Columbanus’ letters is the unity of the Church. Columbanus was also insistent that the Church, particularly the papacy, was failing to teach correct doctrine and needed to better promote a Christ-like character in the Body of Christ. The dispute over Easter fits within these concerns. At least as far as the surviving evidence demonstrates there was little controversy over the divergent Easter dates for the first period that Columbanus was in Gaul. This can be explained by two factors. First, it can be assumed that Columbanus was less well known during the early years of his career on


25

Table 2.2 Comparative Easter dates, 590–608 Year

Celtic-84 Easter

luna

Victorian

luna Easter (Victorian)*

590

March 26

17

15

591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608

April 15 March 30 April 19 April 11 March 27 April 15 April 7 March 30 April 12 April 3 March 26 April 15 March 31 April 19 April 11 March 27 April 16 April 7

18 14 16 18 14 14 17 20 14 16 19 20 16 17 19 16 17 19

16 11 13 15 12 12 15 18 12 14 17 18 14 15 17 13 14 16

March 26 or April 2 April 15 April 6 March 29 April 11 or 18 April 3 April 22 April 7 or 14 March 30 April 19 April 10 March 26 April 15 April 7 March 22 April 11 April 3 April 23 April 7

luna

luna (Celtic)*

15/22

17/24

16 18 21 15/22 19 19 15/22 18 19 21 17 18 21 16 17 20 21 16

18 21 24 18/25 21 21 17/24 20 21 23 19 20 23 18 19 23 24 19

Notes: Bold⫽tables in agreement. * Due to problems with how the Celtic-84 table calculated the date of the moon, its luna dates advanced one day ahead of the actual moon every sixty-three years. The Victorian luna dates also disagreed with the Dionysian from the seventh through the nineteenth year of the nineteen-year cycle. Due to these discrepancies, many tables in this book will list the luna date of the Easter table in question and then the date according to the competing table. Source: Celtic-84 Easter and luna dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19, modernized and cycled by C. Corning; Victorian Easter and luna dates calculated using Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion, pp. 821–22 with modifications as indicated by Jones, “The Victorian and Dionysiac,” p. 411; alternative luna dates and all other adjustments for Victorian dating by C. Corning.

the Continent. While he appears to have gained some support from the Burgundian court soon after his arrival, the Merovingian episcopacy likely took little notice of him until he became popular and amassed a number of followers. In addition, the Victorian table listed two Easter dates in 590 and 594 (table 2.2). At the Synod of Orleans in 541, the Merovingian Church adopted Victorius’ table. Therefore, all of Merovingian Gaul was using this table and needing to decide which of the Easter dates was correct. Gregory of Tours reports that in 590, Tours followed the April 2 Latin date, while

26


other areas in Gaul celebrated the March 26 Greek date.20 Given the controversy surrounding the Victorian table in the early 590s, coupled with Columbanus’ limited popularity, it is understandable that the Easter controversy between Columbanus and the Merovingian Church did not become a major issue until the latter part of the 590s.

First Letter of Columbanus The first evidence of a developing dispute between Columbanus and the Merovingian episcopacy is contained in a letter that Columbanus wrote to Pope Gregory the Great, c.600, asking for his support in the Easter controversy. In this letter, Columbanus outlines the problems with the Victorian table. He argues that luna 21–22 should not be used because these dates are so late in the moon’s cycle that moonrise occurs well past midnight (table 2.3). For instance, by late March on luna 14, the moon rises seventeen minutes before the sun sets. However, by luna 22, the moon does not appear until nine hours and seventeen minutes after sunset. For Columbanus, Easter could never be observed on a day in which darkness ruled light. Therefore by allowing Easter to occur on luna 21–22, the Victorian table recognized a dark Easter; one on which there were more hours of darkness than moonlight.21 In addition, because the Victorian table used the March 21 equinox, it allowed Easter to fall as early as March 22. For Columbanus, who believed that the equinox fell on March 25, this was too early.22 Therefore, the Victorian table had a dark Easter not only because it allowed luna 21–22, Table 2.3 Sunset and moonrise, Paris, France, March/April 2005 Date March 25 March 26 March 27 March 28 March 29 March 30 March 31 April 1 April 2 April 3

Luna

Sunset

Moon Rise

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

19:11 19:13 19:14 19:16 19:17 19:19 19:20 19:22 19:23 19:25

18:54 20:07 21:24 22:43 no rise 00:05 01:27 02:40 03:40 04:25

Notes: Times do not reflect daylight savings time. Data from the U.S. Naval Observatory.

Time between Sunset and Moonrise ⫺ 0h 17m 0h 54m 2h 10m 3h 27m n/a 5h 46m 7h 07m 8h 18m 9h 17m 10h 00m


27

but also because it placed Easter before the equinox, when there were more hours of darkness than light. Since Easter at its heart is a celebration of humanity’s deliverance from sin, a dark Easter symbolically denied the need for Jesus, “the Light of the World,” to have died for mankind’s salvation— an idea no Christian should ever support. Columbanus also accuses Victorius of violating Old Testament Law. He states that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread should only be celebrated between luna 14 and 20 as stated in Deuteronomy. Victorius, by using luna 21–22, added two days that are outside the law of God.23 In addition, by moving the dates of Easter from luna 14–20 to luna 16–22, Victorius is telling God that there should be nine days for the Feast of Unleavened Bread so that Easter would always fall at least two days after Passover. While Victorius succeeds in ensuring that the dates for Easter and Passover never overlap by calculating from luna 16, Columbanus points out that by doing this Victorius has changed the word of God. He quotes Deuteronomy 4.2, “You shall not add to the word that I speak to you: neither shall you take away from it.”24 It is no wonder that when Irish scholars examined Victorius’ table, it “earned ridicule or indulgence rather than authority.”25 Columbanus then moves the discussion to the problem of keeping Easter on Passover with the Jews, the main criticism of the Celtic-84 since it allowed Easter to fall on luna 14.26 He argues that the Jews do not celebrate Easter and it does not belong to them. Thus, there is nothing wrong with having Easter occur on luna 14 if it is a Sunday because God, not the Jews, instituted Passover. This holiday observes God’s miracle of saving the exiles in Egypt and thus Passover is not a day to elevate or honor Jews, but one that recognizes the Lord’s grace and mercy in saving his people. Easter celebrates this same idea; Christ died to save sinners from damnation. To say that luna 14 is a “Jewish day” gives Jews the authority that they have forfeited by rejecting Christ and ignores God’s power over all creation. He next reminds the pope that during the Easter dispute of the late second century, the bishops in the East did not agree with Pope Victor’s (189–98) condemnation of celebrating Easter with the Jews. Columbanus is taking this somewhat out of context, however. In the second century, the issue was whether Easter should always be celebrated on luna 14, regardless of the day of the week.27 Columbanus was not advocating a return to this practice since he thought Easter could only be observed on Sunday. Therefore, he is stretching his argument a bit by implying that not only did the East allow Passover and Easter to occur on the same day, but it upheld Easter limits of luna 14–20 as well.28 In addition, Columbanus cites Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea (c.268/69–283), as an expert who supported the Celtic-84 lunar limits. Not

28


much is known about Anatolius except the information provided by Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History. He relates that the bishop was very learned in maths, astronomy, and physics and that the people of Alexandria asked Anatolius to establish a school of Aristotelian philosophy.29 Eusebius even incorporates passages from Anatolius’ On the Pasch in his History. Later, St. Jerome included a paraphrase of this information about Anatolius’ learning and skill in his On Illustrious Men (c.392).30 In his letter, Columbanus quotes directly from Anatolius’ discussion of Paschal tables which states that luna 21–22 are not acceptable for Easter. The Anatolian passage continues: For those who assert that it is possible for Easter to be celebrated at this period of the moon not only cannot affirm it by authority of divine scripture but incur the charge of both sacrilege and contumacy, and the peril of their souls, as long as they affirm that the true light, which rules over all darkness, can be offered while darkness has any dominion.31

Based on this passage, anyone arguing for the Victorian Easter limits is in error and aligning themselves with heretics.32 In case the reader is unsure whether Anatolius correctly understood the complexities of Easter dating, Columbanus reiterates the information that Jerome admired Anatolius’ knowledge and spoke well of his On the Pasch. Therefore, according to Columbanus, Irish scholars, the bishops of the East, Anatolius and by extension, Jerome have all condemned the Victorian table and/or its lunar limits. He pleads with the pope not to see this as an argument between a lowly monk and Victorius, but between the authorities of the Church and Victorius. Who ultimately should be trusted—Scripture and the Church fathers or a cleric who could not figure out how to correctly calculate an Easter table? Columbanus cautions the pope that “he who goes against the authority of St. Jerome will be a heretic or reprobate, whoever he may be, in the eyes of the churches of the West; for these repose an undoubted faith in divine scripture in all things.”33

Other Letters by Columbanus about Easter Three additional letters by Columbanus survive that discuss Easter. The first of these was written in c.603, when Columbanus was asked by the Burgundian bishops to appear before a church council.34 He chose not to attend and instead sent a written reply. Jonas makes absolutely no mention of the council in his Life of Columbanus, but most scholars agree that this letter was in response to a council held at Chalon in c.603.


29

A comparison of the Easter tables helps to show why controversy might have arisen at this time. For supporters of the Celtic-84, the April 7 date listed on the Victorian table in 603 fell on luna 23, a totally unacceptable date (table 2.2). According to the Victorian table, March 31, as advocated by the Celtic-84, would fall on luna 14. Matters were even worse in 604 when the Victorian date was March 22, before the March 25 equinox for the Celtic table. The Easter dates in that year were also a full four weeks apart since the Celtic-84 listed April 19 as the correct date. In addition, it is interesting to note that in 606, the Celtic-84 would begin another 84-year cycle and its lunar dates would shift one more day out of alignment with the actual moon.35 Keeping all this in mind, it is not too surprising that the controversy came to a head in c.603. After Chalon, Columbanus again wrote to the papacy.36 Due to the fact that he names no specific pope, this letter is usually dated to 604 or 607, when there was a short papal vacancy. By the time of the composition of this letter, Columbanus was facing more pressure from the Burgundian bishops to abandon the Celtic-84. As far as is known, he received no response from Pope Gregory, and it can be assumed the Celtic-84 was condemned at the Council of Chalon. Columbanus’ last letter in which Easter is mentioned was written after he had been exiled from Burgundy in 610.37 He addresses his monastic community at Luxeuil and specifically Athala, who he assumes will take his place as abbot. This letter contains advice on maintaining peace and unity within the community, specifically in terms of observing the correct date of Easter. These three letters contain many of the points found within the letter to Pope Gregory. Columbanus again argues that the Victorian table violates both the Old and New Testaments and that it celebrates a dark Easter thereby rejecting the need for humanity to be saved.38 In addition, he repeats the fact that scholars have condemned Victorius’ table and its Easter limits. Further undermining the authority of this table is the fact that it was composed “recently,” after the age of Martin of Tours (c.316–97), Jerome (c.342–420), and Pope Damasus (304–84).39 In light of all this, Columbanus argues, it should be obvious that the Celtic-84 and Anatolius are correct in their support of luna 14–20 lunar limits. What is new in these letters is Columbanus’ argument for a compromise solution. In the letter to the Council of Chalon, he suggests that both sides prayerfully examine the two Easter tables. If each tradition is found to be worthy, then both should be followed. However, just after pointing out that the Victorian table violates Scripture, he declares that only those tables that agree with the Old and New Testaments should be accepted. Obviously, he believed that his tradition would triumph.40

30


By the time that he wrote his second letter to the papacy, however, it appears that Columbanus was less hopeful that the Frankish Church would unify behind the correct Easter table. He requested that the pope allow him and his followers to use the Celtic-84, even if the rest of the Frankish bishops chose to remain in error by sanctioning the Victorian table. To support this petition, he reminds the pope of the situation between Polycarp and Pope Anicetus (c.155–c.166) who agreed to disagree over Easter.41 He also cites the First Council of Constantinople (381) to argue that “churches of God planted in pagan nations should live by their own laws, as they had been instructed by their fathers.”42 He stated earlier that one of the reasons the Victorian table had less authority than the Celtic-84 was that it was created after the period of the Church fathers.43 Therefore, by referencing this council, Columbanus reinforces his right to use the Celtic-84, even if the Merovingian Church would not.

Summary For Columbanus, unity on Easter was bound up with the unity of the Church as a whole. This is a theme found within the writings on Easter since before the Council of Nicaea, and one that continued throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. Obviously, the Burgundian bishops considered Easter calculation an important issue as well, since Columbanus’ letters are witness to as many as fifteen years of conflict and the calling of a major kingdom-wide council. Columbanus saw the Victorian table as violating the symbolism evident in nature, the Old and New Testaments, and the teachings of the Church fathers. He could not understand why the Frankish bishops continued to support this table and why the papacy did not issue a clear condemnation of it. He took great pains to present his arguments as not coming from himself alone but as representing a large and illustrious group of people, including St. Jerome. He did propose in his third letter that both tables could be followed in Merovingian Gaul, but taken in context with the rest of the letter and his other writings, it is clear that he believed this solution would be allowing the Frankish Church to remain in error while his followers used the “correct” table.

The Papacy and the Church in the West Along with Columbanus’ arguments for the Celtic-84, his letters can also be used as evidence for his attitude toward the papacy and the authority it


31

should wield within the Church as a whole. Before examining Columbanus’ writings in depth, it is important to understand the wider historical context. In the early Middle Ages, the pope held a special position in the Western Church due to the association of Sts. Peter and Paul with the bishop of Rome.44 Christian tradition held that Peter had been the first bishop at Rome and that Christ had granted him special authority over the Christian community. This is important because in ancient Roman inheritance law, rights and authority were passed intact to the appointed heir. Therefore, as bishop of Rome, the pope was Peter’s heir and deserved the same honor and respect that had been given to the Apostle.45 In addition, both Sts. Peter and Paul had established churches in Rome and been martyred there, thus giving it a strong connection to both men. In practical reality, Rome was seen as a center of orthodoxy and a court of appeals when disputes could not be solved by regional councils.46 However, local churches were still very independent; the assumption being that the pope would not interfere unless asked to do so. Most would have considered an ecumenical council the highest authority in the Church, not the papacy. Therefore, while the pope deserved special honor and authority, this was certainly limited when viewed from a high medieval context.47 By the early 600s, the authority of the papacy had been severely undermined by the Three Chapters controversy.48 Problems arose in the Church in 553 when the Second Council of Constantinople, also known as the Fifth Ecumenical, ruled that the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus should be condemned for supporting Nestorian ideas.49 This was controversial because the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon had cleared these men of heresy charges and had not denounced their writings. Therefore, it appeared that the Fifth Ecumenical Council was declaring that the Fourth had been in error. Since ecumenical councils were the highest authority in the Church, they could not be wrong. If the Fourth had ruled incorrectly, then ecumenical councils might have made other mistakes in doctrine and practice as well. This would open the door to questioning virtually every doctrine held by the Church. In response to papal condemnation of the three writings (chapters) of Theodore, Ibas, and Theodoret, a number of churches in the West broke off communion with Rome.50 These included the churches in North Africa, southern Gaul, and northern Italy.51 By 600, some churches had resolved the conflict with Rome, but the orthodox churches of northern Italy remained in schism. Furthermore, the fact that parts of the Lombard kingdom were following Arian teachings and the See of Ravenna remained at times independent of Roman power only complicated the situation for the papacy in northern Italy.52 At times, some churches in Gaul, while remaining in communion with Rome, chose to ignore papal dictates and advice.53 Gregory the Great wrote

32


to the Frankish Church concerned about problems with simony and asked that the Church call a council to discuss this issue, but it never happened.54 It is interesting to note that Gregory of Tours in his writings rarely discusses papal involvement in Gaul and seems to downplay the idea that Rome held any special power or authority.55

Columbanus and Rome Columbanus’ letters emphasize that the Irish acknowledged their debt and obligation to Rome for the Christianization of Ireland. He states in his letter to Pope Boniface that the Irish are disciples of Saints Peter and Paul and of all the disciples who wrote the sacred canon by the Holy Ghost, and we accept nothing outside the evangelical and apostolic teachings; none has been a Judaizer, none a schismatic; but the Catholic Faith, as it was delivered by you first, who are the successors of the holy apostles, is maintained unbroken.56

It has been argued that the statement “as it was delivered by you first” is an allusion to Pope Celestine sending Palladius to be a bishop in Ireland. This phrase may also connect to Pope Leo’s assertion that Christian Rome had surpassed pagan Rome, since through the message of Christ, Rome had authority in territories never controlled by the Empire.57 Just as Rome had once been the center of an earthly kingdom so now it was the head of a spiritual kingdom stretching throughout the earth. Columbanus asserts his respect for the pope and desire to visit Rome.58 He makes it very clear that his wish to see Rome has nothing to do with the fact that it had been the capital of the Empire. Instead, the city is important to him because “we are bound to St. Peter’s chair; for though Rome be great and famous, among us it is only on that chair that her greatness and her fame depend.”59 Columbanus also acknowledges Rome’s place as a protector of orthodoxy. In his letter to Gregory, Columbanus writes that he wants to see the pope “so that I may drink from the spiritual channel of the living fountain and the living flood of knowledge flowing from heaven.”60 He continues this theme in his fifth letter when he argues that the Church, like a river, only reflects the purity that pours forth from its source, which is Rome.61 Thus Columbanus alludes to three major arguments that had been used by Rome to support the idea of papal primacy.62 First, Rome was associated with St. Peter and this gave it special authority as his heir. Second, Rome now influenced lands that (originally) had not been part of the Roman


33

Empire in the West. Third, that pure doctrine and practice flowed from Rome and as long as the streams of tradition poured forth from this common source, the Church should not fall into error.63 Columbanus’ view of the papacy is best seen in his letter to Pope Boniface in c.613 regarding the Three Chapters controversy.64 Keeping in mind the schism occurring within the Church at that time, his letter is a remarkable acknowledgment of the possibilities for papal leadership in the Church. He refers to the pope as the shepherd who leads the flock to safety, the watchman who guards against the enemies of Christ, and the commander of the troops in the battle between good and evil.65 He pleads with the pope to remove all suspicion that Rome supports heretics, to call a council, and to lead the Church back to unity.66 However, Columbanus cautions, if the pope is in error and refuses to repent, his “subordinates,” those who have kept the orthodox faith, have the right to judge him.67 As heir to Peter, the pope holds authority only as long as he is true to apostolic teaching.68 As head of the body of Christ, it is the pope’s responsibility as watchman and shepherd to warn and admonish the Church. As the source from which the streams of true doctrine flow through all the traditions in the West, he must repent and promote correct teaching for fear that all churches be sullied.69 If he does not do these things, he is failing in his main obligations as a leader. Notice that, in part, Columbanus uses the claims of papal primacy to buttress his arguments for why the papacy must better respond to the Three Chapters controversy. Columbanus was not always as diplomatic as he might have been in his letters, especially those to the papacy.70 The amount of controversy that followed him throughout his career on the Continent indicates that he often had problems with this. However, he did recognize the role of the pope as leader of the Church and took the papacy to task for not effectively exercising this authority. It is not hard to imagine Columbanus’ disappointment when he believed the papacy would not choose the correct Easter table or make the necessary decisions to end the schism caused by the Three Chapters controversy.71 Columbanus’ hope was that the papacy would provide leadership for the Church and once again unite the body of Christ.

Kings and Bishops Interpreting Columbanus’ relationship with the bishops and kings of Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy is complicated by the fact that the historian must rely more on Jonas’ Life of Columbanus and less on Columbanus’ own writings. Jonas had to meet the needs of the Columbanian

34


communities in the 640s by ensuring that those in power were not offended by his work. Due to this, Jonas is either silent or manipulates data concerning Columbanus’ interactions with the Merovingian kings and bishops.

Merovingian Kings Understanding Columbanus’ relationships with the Merovingian kings is critical because this influenced his ability to respond to the Merovingian bishops.72 According to Jonas, after Columbanus settled in Burgundy he established a number of monasteries and gained many followers, including King Theuderic.73 Columbanus then convinced Theuderic to abandon the practice of concubinage and take a lawful wife. This was a major threat to Theuderic’s grandmother, Brunhild, who thought that a queen would undermine her own power. She also was upset because Theuderic listened to Columbanus’ advice rather than her own. Soon after this, Brunhild asked Columbanus to bless her great-grandchildren, whose mother was a concubine.74 He refused and prophesized that her grandchildren would not live to inherit the throne. In retaliation, Brunhild began to “persecute” Columbanus’ monasteries and also issued orders forbidding any to aid his monks. Next Jonas recounts that Columbanus traveled to where the king was staying to demand that the court stop harassing his communities. Theuderic sent Columbanus food, but the abbot refused to accept gifts “from the wicked.”75 As he said this, all of the serving plates and cups broke apart. Suitably chastened by this miracle, Theuderic and Brunhild begged for forgiveness and promised never again to attack Columbanus’ monasteries. However, they soon forsook their promises. Not only did Brunhild turn the king against Columbanus, but the court and the bishops were soon standing in opposition as well.76 Jonas never mentions the controversy over Easter or any other issues of discord between Columbanus and the bishops, so the reader is unaware of the episcopal hostility that existed before 609/10. Thus, in Jonas’ version of events as just outlined, all opposition to Columbanus occurred because Brunhild feared her own loss of power and convinced the court and bishops to attack him. To emphasize this point, Jonas refers to Brunhild as a second Jezebel.77 It is clear that the three decades between Columbanus’ death and the composition of his Life served as a boon to Jonas, enabling him to manipulate facts. While people may have vaguely remembered the conflict among Columbanus, the royal family, and the bishops, enough time had passed to ensure that as long as Jonas mentioned Columbanus’ exile, he could alter


35

the events leading up to it.78 It is also possible that a good “spin” on the incident had already occurred within the Columbanian tradition so that Jonas was simply recording the collective memory of the past. Either way, historians know that the Life is a very slanted record of Columbanus’ life. Besides trying to explain the episcopal antagonism toward Columbanus, why did Jonas present Brunhild in such a negative light? A look at the political situation of the 640s offers a few possible reasons. First, Brunhild’s line had died out in 613. After this, Chlothar II (585–629), his son Dagobert (623–39), and his grandson, Clovis II (639–57), became the major benefactors of Columbanian monasticism (table 2.1). It was Chlothar who killed Sigibert II (613), one of Brunhild’s great-grandsons, as well as Brunhild herself. His court also appears to have begun a smear campaign to justify his takeover of Burgundy and the unification of all three Merovingian kingdoms under one ruler. Keeping this in mind, it is understandable that Jonas would downplay any positive involvement by Brunhild and her descendants in the foundation and support of Annegray, Luxeuil, and Fontaines.79 Jonas states that Sigibert (561–75) was king when Columbanus arrived in Gaul.80 However, information provided by Columbanus in his letters shows that he arrived in c.590, approximately fifteen years after Sigibert’s death. Chlothar and his court had not condemned Sigibert, even though he was Brunhild’s husband. In fact, they portrayed him as one of her first victims. Chlothar repeatedly referred to laws and privileges granted under King Sigibert without mentioning the kings who ruled after him. It seems that only Brunhild and her descendants were the focus of Chlothar’s revisionist history. Clearly Columbanus had arrived in Burgundy and founded his monasteries before Chlothar ruled this area. Since Chlothar mentioned Sigibert in a positive light, Luxeuil and Jonas likely decided that it was better to place the saint’s arrival under Sigibert and then be silent about any interaction with Brunhild and her relatives until the events leading up to Columbanus’ exile in 610.81 However much Jonas tried to minimize the involvement of Brunhild and her family in Columbanus’ monasteries before c.610, it is difficult to believe that this was the case. Jonas admits that Columbanus visited the king, whom he identifies as Sigibert, when he first arrived in Gaul. In addition, the land for his monasteries most likely came from royal grants. The fact that Brunhild expected Columbanus to bless her great-grandchildren and Theuderic threatened to cut off all aid when Columbanus refused him entry to the inner precincts of Luxeuil also supports a theory of a close relationship between Columbanus and the Burgundian royal family.82 Another sign of royal patronage and protection is the fact that although Columbanus refused to appear at the Council of Chalon in c.603, nothing

36


happened to him until after Brunhild and Theuderic withdrew their support in c.609. This can be contrasted to the experience of Bishop Desiderius of Vienne, who also may have criticized concubinage and who was exiled at Chalon after angering Brunhild. Desiderius would later return from exile, but he was eventually killed, supposedly at Brunhild’s orders.83 The main difference between Columbanus and Desiderius in c.603 is the fact that Columbanus had royal backing while Desiderius did not.84 While Jonas appears to have glossed over the involvement of Brunhild and her family, this is not the case when it comes to King Chlothar of Neustria. According to Jonas, when Columbanus arrived in Neustria, Chlothar “received Columbanus as a veritable gift from heaven and begged that he would remain.”85 Even when Columbanus chastised him for abuses at the court, “Chlothar promised to correct everything according to Columbanus’ command, for he zealously loved wisdom, and rejoiced in the blessing which he had secured.”86 Before leaving the court, Columbanus prophesized that Chlothar would rule all three Merovingian kingdoms within three years.87 It is impossible to know whether Columbanus actually made such a prediction, but given the political situation in the 640s, it is not surprising that Jonas would portray the relationship between Chlothar and Columbanus in such a positive light. Despite what Jonas reports, then, it is clear that Columbanus interacted with the Burgundian royal family from the time he first arrived in the kingdom. On the whole, this relationship was a beneficial one from which Columbanus and his monasteries received protection and support. It was only after the dispute in c.609, that Columbanus lost royal support and had to leave the kingdom. Due to the political realities of the 630s and 640s, Jonas did his best to negate the positive relationship between Columbanus and Brunhild’s family. Following the lead of the Burgundian court of his own day, Jonas portrayed Brunhild as the second Jezebel and Columbanus as an innocent victim in her evil schemes.

Merovingian Bishops Theoretically, bishops had tremendous power. In regional church councils throughout the sixth century, the Frankish episcopacy outlined their jurisdiction. According to the canons no monasteries could be founded without episcopal support, an abbot could not rule more than one monastery and had to report annually to his bishop, a monastery could not make important decisions without episcopal confirmation, and fasts and worship were under diocesan control.88 In addition, the writings of the sixth-century poet Venantius Fortunatus describe the power and patronage of the Merovingian


37

bishops.89 However, historians have realized that both the canons and the poems of Venantius Fortunatus celebrating the bishops of Gaul portray the ideal of episcopal power, not the reality.90 While there were powerful bishops, their influence could be limited by important kings and aristocratic families. Kings were routinely involved in episcopal elections, either by actually appointing the new bishop or giving final approval to an episcopal candidate.91 Some bishops were former members of the royal court. This was the case for Eligius of Noyon, Audoin of Rouen, Paul of Verdun, Sulpicius of Bourges, and Arnulf of Metz, all of whom had been a part of Chlothar II’s court before being elevated to the episcopacy.92 Once in power, bishops also needed royal support. Various primary sources demonstrate the consequences for a bishop who defied the king or chose the wrong political faction.93 For example, Praetextatus, bishop of Rouen, was deposed and exiled for acting against King Chilperic (561–84).94 He was eventually murdered by the order of Queen Fredegund.95 In another case, Childebert (575–96) exiled Egidius, bishop of Rheims, when it was discovered that he was involved in a number of plots against the crown.96 As mentioned above, Desiderius, bishop of Vienne, was deposed, exiled, and eventually murdered under Brunhild’s orders. Once a bishop lost royal patronage, it appears to have been very difficult to withstand either secular or ecclesiastical opposition.

Columbanus and the Merovingian Bishops In the popular literature on the Celtic Church, some argue that the Irish believed abbots had more authority than bishops. However, Columbanus’ writings do not support this theory. His attitude toward the Frankish episcopacy is seen most clearly in his letter to the bishops at Chalon. Columbanus briefly highlights the problems with the Victorian table and chastises the bishops for the corruption, simony, and avarice he saw in the Church. He states that these have arisen because of pride and arrogance.97 He argues that the Church, in imitation of Christ, should promote humility and good works. Those who lead must practice what they preach or the message of truth will be undermined. True unity will only occur when all focus on humbly following Christ.98 This stress on humility and good works is important for at least three reasons. First, Columbanus is echoing the sentiments found in Pope Gregory’s Pastoral Care. Gregory emphasized the need for leaders to preach through both word and deed.99 In this work, the pope also demanded that those who rule avoid prideful thinking at all costs.100 Those blinded by arrogance and sin should never lead the Church.101 In order to avoid these problems, the pastor should withdraw and focus on God through

38


contemplation. By doing this, he would be better able to see both his own faults and the dangers facing his followers. However, the inner life needed to be balanced by service as well.102 Besides demonstrating an affinity with Gregorian thought, the emphasis on humility is crucial to Columbanus’ claim that the Celtic-84 is the correct Easter table. If both sides humbly submitted, then they would be able to see more clearly and to judge which tradition was correct.103 Columbanus had no doubt that the Celtic-84 would be chosen since it did not advocate dark Easters and had the support of the Church fathers. As with his letter to Pope Boniface, Columbanus believed that he had the right to criticize the leadership of the Church when they erred. Columbanus’ authority to chastise and teach the clergy of Burgundy had little to do with the fact that he was an abbot per se. If he had been corrupted by malice or pride then he would have forfeited his rights as a servant of Christ. Christian leaders should strive to be “humble and chaste, simple-hearted and guileless in evil, yet wise in goodness, easy to be entreated and not retaining anger.”104 These are difficult aims for those with worldly distractions and hearts still set on sin. However, as one who was poor and weak in Christ, Columbanus felt that he had a responsibility to speak out against what he saw as a failure of leadership by the bishops; how great a sin it would be to see those who led the Church fall into error and not care enough to defend the truth. The bishops were the shepherds who led the flock. To do this, they had to imitate Christ and teach correct doctrine and practices.105 They also needed to stop persecuting Columbanus and his followers.106 Columbanus states that he decided to write rather than attend the synod for fear of the quarrel that would arise if he were there in person. He specifically states that he is a “junior” speaking to his “fathers.” In light of this, Columbanus’ authority to reprimand the bishops rests in his humble imitation of Christ. It was because of this that he was able to see the problems in the Church. As with the pope, what Columbanus desired was that the bishops fulfill their God-appointed duties as heirs to the apostles. In addition to Columbanus’ refusal to attend the Council of Chalon, the existence of a papal exemption for the monastery of Bobbio has been used to demonstrate that Columbanus did not respect episcopal power.107 This exemption was granted in 628 by Pope Honorius and removed the monastery from episcopal jurisdiction. Since Bobbio was one of Columbanus’ foundations, the exemption supposedly demonstrates that he left a legacy that was determined to limit episcopal power and reinforce the authority of abbots. However, far from being a major break in tradition, members of the Merovingian Church had been obtaining immunities and protections for


39

various monastic communities since the late sixth century.108 In 599, Pope Gregory the Great upheld an earlier privilege granted by King Childebert to a monastery in Arles, which protected the monastery’s property and allowed it to choose its own abbots without episcopal interference. In c.602, Brunhild wrote to Gregory the Great asking him to grant protection to three of her foundations in Autun. These requests also focused on property and the right of the king and religious foundation to elect the abbot without episcopal interference.109 Furthermore, in the late sixth century, the monastery of the Holy Cross did not acknowledge the authority of its local bishop, but instead looked to the bishop of Tours.110 Thus, it should not be argued that the idea of obtaining special privileges to limit episcopal power or control came from Ireland to the Continent via Columbanus. It is true that the second generation of Columbanian monks would obtain more sweeping protections than before, but rather than seeing the exemptions from the late 620s on as a new influence from the “Celtic Church,” it is important to view them as a logical development from the earlier sixth-century immunities granted by the popes, Merovingian kings, and bishops.111

Columbanus, the Merovingian Episcopacy, and Controversy In c.610, Jonas would have us believe that Theuderic and Brunhild were the sole reason for episcopal opposition to Columbanus. However, controversy surrounding Easter dating most likely flared in 609/10 with the removal of royal protection.112 In addition, the bishops were probably upset with the way Columbanus had been able to ignore both a summons to attend a synod and then its ruling. Columbanus’ close ties with the royal family as evidenced by the endowments he received for his monasteries would have worried any bishop attempting to gain the support and backing of the king and his court. Keeping this in mind, it is not surprising that the bishops supported the royal court when it turned against Columbanus. Once he had lost royal backing, he was not able to defend himself against their accusations. The conflict between Columbanus and the bishops was not a direct result of Theuderic and Brunhild turning against him. Royal support was, however, one of the most important factors in terms of Columbanus’ ability to withstand antagonism. When Jonas was writing the Life of Columbanus, he faced the formidable challenge that, by the late 620s, the Columbanian monasteries had abandoned the Celtic-84 and had adopted the Victorian table.113 Jonas needed to create a reason for the conflict between the bishops and Columbanus

40


without portraying the saint in error. Therefore, he did not discuss the letters to the papacy or the Council of Chalon in c.603, but instead presented the conflict as stemming from Brunhild’s influence. Jonas states that once Brunhild convinced the bishops to attack Columbanus, their complaints focused on his monastic rule; no mention is made of Easter tables.114 By the 640s, a number of monasteries in Merovingian Gaul had adopted either Columbanus’ Rule or a mixed rule that included portions of his text. Since many of Jonas’ readers would have seen nothing wrong with the Columbanian Rule, by centering opposition around this, Jonas reinforced the myth that the charges against Columbanus were insubstantial and politically, rather than religiously, motivated. In this way, Jonas countered any memories of conflict between Columbanus and the Merovingian ecclesiastical leadership by providing an explanation for these events which fit within the model of sanctity he was creating for the Columbanian tradition. Jonas had an additional problem that by the 640s, many bishops throughout the Merovingian kingdoms were patrons of the Columbanian tradition.115 Therefore, Jonas needed to be careful not to condemn the episcopacy as a whole. This is another reason for placing the blame for any controversy so heavily on Brunhild. According to the Life, while some of the Merovingian episcopacy did turn against Columbanus, it was due to Brunhild’s guile and treachery. The episcopal support the Columbanian tradition enjoyed in c.640 may have added yet another reason for Jonas’ silence about the Council of Chalon. The bishops would not have wanted Christians to think it was acceptable to refuse a summons from the episcopacy.

Lombard Kings and Bishops Columbanus arrived in the Lombard kingdom in c.613 and stayed there until his death in 615 (map 2.1). There is no evidence of the episcopal opposition that existed in Merovingian Gaul for a number of reasons. First, he was in Lombardy for less than three years, as opposed to the approximately twenty years he spent in Burgundy. In addition, there would have been little discussion over Easter because the Celtic-84 and Victorian tables were in agreement in 614 and 615. Furthermore, the Church in northern Italy, as discussed above, was in the midst of a major schism concerning the Three Chapters controversy and had broken off communion with Rome.116 Finally, the king and many others in northern Italy were Arian, while the queen and her court were Chalcedon Christians. Disagreements over Easter dating were probably not high on the list of problems for the Lombard Church at this time.


41

Columbanus also had the backing of the royal court. It was King Agilulf, an Arian Christian, who requested that Columbanus write to the papacy and open negotiations to heal the breach in the Orthodox Church.117 In Columbanus’ fifth letter, he makes it clear that theologically he was in agreement with the queen and others who were in schism with Rome. Therefore, it can be assumed that he retained royal backing throughout his few years in the Lombard kingdom.

Summary Clearly Columbanus had royal patronage wherever he went. Despite episcopal opposition to the Celtic-84 in Merovingian Gaul, he was able to stay in Burgundy until he lost royal support. He then traveled to Neustria where he was well received by Chlothar, and to Austrasia where for a short time he received the support of King Theudebert. At the end of his life, Columbanus had the favor of the Lombard court and also Chlothar. Most, if not all, of his monastic foundations were established on royal land grants. When it came to his relationship with the bishops, Columbanus treated the episcopacy with respect even when he thought they followed the wrong table. He was worried by the simony, greed, and pride he saw within some members of the Burgundian hierarchy. While he felt fully justified in chastising the ecclesiastical leadership, he also acknowledged their critical role within the Church. It was the bishops who shepherded the Church and encouraged and protected the flock. This did not mean that a humble follower of Christ should unquestioningly obey the bishops if they fell into error as they did when they supported the Victorian table and its dark Easter. It was the duty of all Christians to ensure that the Church remained true to the faith and its mission. For Columbanus, the problems within the Merovingian Church would be solved when the bishops decided to turn away from earthly temptations and humbly submit to Christ. It was only then that a “unity of minds and peace and charity [could] . . . be assured.”118

Penance and Penitentials Columbanus’ penitential is commonly divided into two sections: one concerned with monks (A) and one primarily focused on clerics and the laity (B).119 Part “A” is further subdivided into major and minor sins: murder, theft, and sodomy in the first part, while the second is focused on those who

42


have contradicted a superior or refused to obey the rule. Analysis of his penitential reveals that “A” was composed before “B.” In fact, it has been argued that “A” may be a penitential text brought to the Continent by Columbanus rather than actually written by the saint. This is because the Latin differs between the two texts and “A” is not as developed in penances and penalties as “B.”120 There is nothing specific to argue against this theory. Columbanus is not known to have given spiritual guidance to priests or the laity while he was in Ireland, though admittedly information on this period is sketchy at best. Whether Columbanus wrote “A” or simply brought this text to the Continent, once he began to interact with the clerics and laity in Merovingian Gaul, he penned the “B” section to account for his altered pastoral circumstances. In a number of different ways, Columbanus’ work forms a bridge between earlier and later penitentials. The first penitentials tended to focus either on monks, clergy, or laity, but not all three, while later ones routinely feature all three groups. The Penitential of Columbanus, then, shows one step in the process of this development. Though portions were written at different times, he did address all three groups.121 Columbanus incorporated components of earlier penitentials into his document as well. In fact, Columbanus depended heavily upon the Penitential of Finnian (c.550) for the “B” section of his work.122 Of the thirty topics concerning clerics and the laity, fifteen can be traced to the influence of Finnian’s instructions.123 In turn, later penitentials, such as the eighth-century Burgundian, used Columbanus’ penitential for inspiration.124 In recent years, historians have been emphasizing the variety of the types of penance used on the Continent and within the Celtic tradition as well. It is incorrect to imagine a dichotomy where the Celts used only private penance and the rest of the Church only public. The situation was much more complex than this.125 For instance, in his penitential, Columbanus states that if a layman has Holy Communion with a heretic, “he must rank among the catechumens, that is, separated from other Christians, for forty days and for two other forty-day periods in the lowest rank of Christians, that is among the penitents.”126 This passage implies that Columbanus assumed that in any congregation, there would be penitents undergoing the more traditional form of public penance where they progressed through stages, separated from full communion until restored by the bishop.127 On the other hand, there is evidence of the use of private penance on the Continent from the sixth century.128 The introduction of penitentials does not seem to have created controversy in the Merovingian or Lombard Churches in the early seventh century. Examining the council records for the Merovingian Church revealed that six discussed penance, but none of these were held during Columbanus’


43

lifetime.129 Also, Jonas provides no defense for the use of penitentials in the Life of Columbanus where he casually mentions that bishops and others in the Frankish Church sought spiritual guidance from the saint.130 For Jonas, this was simply another chance to highlight Columbanus’ holiness, not an opportunity to defend practices that were under attack.131 Therefore, it is important to regard Columbanus’ introduction of penitentials as an act that fit within the popular concepts of penance already gaining favor on the Continent. What Irish authors like Columbanus added was the idea of listing and codifying known penances, taking into account age, gender, and rank, and building on the wisdom of those who were regarded as experts in diagnosing and treating the “illness” of sin. Thus, Celtic penitentials added another dimension to the practice of penance, but did not totally replace the variety of customs in use by the seventh-century Church.

Conclusion Understanding Columbanus’ interactions with the churches in Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy is a critical piece in accurately reconstructing the Celtic tradition. To do this, it is important to separate, as much as possible, Columbanus’ personality from his beliefs. Controversy followed him throughout his life on the Continent and his letters demonstrate that diplomacy was not always his forte. This should not be interpreted as proof that Columbanus thought abbots were the highest authority in the Church or that he represented a young, vital tradition condemning an older, corrupt one. Looking closely at Columbanus’ letters, it is clear that he respected the hierarchy of the Church, and especially the pope. In line with contemporary ideas on the episcopacy and the papacy, Columbanus felt he had the right to criticize them if they were departing from the truth. In addition, Columbanus maintained close connections with the royal court and aristocracy wherever he went. He was not a disinterested outsider. In fact, due to the lack of family ties in Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy, he was very dependent upon royal support and protection. The royal families provided him with land on which to build his monasteries and they protected him from episcopal opposition. In return, they expected his blessings and cooperation. When he did not fulfill his end of the bargain, support was withdrawn and he faced condemnation and exile. Easter was a critical issue for Columbanus. He believed that the Celtic-84 was the correct table and saw numerous problems with the Victorian. This was not just an issue of diversity in traditional practices. In his opinion, the Victorian table advocated dark Easters thereby denying the need for Christ’s

44


death and resurrection. In addition, Victorius ignored the teachings of Scripture and the Church fathers. On top of this, diversity in Easter dating undermined the unity of Church. In order to solve the controversy, Columbanus appealed to the pope to rule against the Victorian table. Only when the Burgundian bishops refused to abandon the Victorian, and no support from the papacy was forthcoming, did Columbanus propose a compromise where his followers could continue to use the Celtic-84 and the Franks would remain in error by following the Victorian. It is important to remember that the Frankish episcopacy also was concerned with the Easter controversy. It is true that Columbanus seems to have had positive relationships with some of the bishops, but his letters to the papacy, the calling of the Council of Chalon, and the episcopal support for his exile in c.610 point to the seriousness of the issues for the Frankish Church. It was not until the Columbanian communities decided to abandon the Celtic-84 after the Synod of Mâcon in 626/27 that the conflict was finally resolved. One area where Celtic traditions had the most lasting influence was in the use of tariff penance and the penitentials. While private penance was not new to the Continent, frequent confession to a priest coupled with the use of penitentials does seem to be a Celtic import, first developed in the British Church and transported to Ireland. The theology and the practice of confession would continue to develop throughout the Middle Ages, but the Celtic “handbooks of penance” are a crucial step in this process.

Chapter 3 Columbanian Monasticism after 615 AD

The monasteries Columbanus founded continued to grow after his death. Daughter houses were established and royal and aristocratic support remained unbroken. However, there were a number of major changes in the Columbanian tradition. First, the next generation of Columbanian abbots were not Irish, but Frankish aristocrats. This created increasingly closer ties between the monasteries and powerful families. Second, the Columbanian foundations slowly abandoned some of the distinctive “Celtic” traits, most importantly the Celtic-84, sometime in the mid-620s. However, because Jonas took great pains to create the image of a continuous progression of ideas and traditions from Columbanus to his successors, none of these transitions are mentioned in the Life.

Sources Jonas’ Life of Columbanus and his Disciples Book 2 contains narratives focused on Columbanus’ successors, Athala (615–26) and Bertulf (626–39), abbots of Bobbio, and Eustasius (613–28) abbot of Luxeuil.1 It also has a series of narratives about Faremoutiers, another Columbanian foundation.2 The previous chapter examined how in book 1 of the Life of Columbanus, Jonas often ignored controversial issues in Columbanus’ career. This is especially true for his support of the Celtic-84

46


table. When Jonas wrote book 2 of the Life, he again faced complex problems. The abbots of Bobbio and Luxeuil were involved in a number of controversies in the 620s and 630s. Many people who participated in these events were still alive in the early 640s when Jonas completed the Life. Complete silence regarding these issues would have undermined Jonas’ authority as an honest, accurate author. It can also be assumed that the Luxeuil and Bobbio communities had specific versions of these incidents that they wanted people to remember. While Jonas was silent about the Celtic-84, he was forced to confront other issues that potentially could have undermined the authority and influence of the Columbanian tradition.3 For the period before 615, historians are fortunate to have Columbanus’ letters to use in conjunction with the Life. By using these letters, scholars are able to see where Jonas skewed information to better fit the goals of the Columbanian communities. Unfortunately, there are no personal letters from the Columbanian abbots in the period after 615. Therefore, even more than in book 1, the historian is forced to rely on the Life of Columbanus. Jonas has produced such an excellent piece of propaganda that it is often very difficult to reconstruct a more objective version of the events of this time.

Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar There are a few additional sources that can help historians gain a fuller understanding of the 620s and 630s. One of these is the fourth book of the Chronicle of Fredegar.4 As mentioned in chapter 2, this work ends in 642, though historians disagree about whether the Chronicle was composed nearer to 650 or 660.5 The fact that the Chronicle shows the influence of the Life of Columbanus means that it must be dated after the early 640s. While this source is quite contemporary to the events contained in the second book of the Life, for the historian analyzing the Columbanian tradition after 615, the Chronicle provides little information. In the period between 615 and 642, the author focused on secular politics, primarily the royal courts. Therefore, this work can be used to provide some political background on a few of the secular officials mentioned in the Life of Columbanus, but not much else is of use on this subject.

Diplomatic Documents Historians can also use some of the surviving diplomatic documents and council records to reconstruct the events of this period. The most important

Columbanian Monasticism after 615

47

council for the Columbanian tradition was one held at Mâcon in 626/27, but unfortunately the only record of this council is found in the Life of Columbanus. However, the records of other Merovingian councils can be used to help reconstruct which bishops might have attended the Synod of Mâcon.6 A papal privilege granted to the Bobbio community in 628 by Pope Honorius is extant along with other royal grants and privileges.7 While not always helpful, these works add pieces to our knowledge of this complex period.

Ties between the Aristocracy and the Columbanian Foundations In the seventh century, the Merovingian and Lombard bishops were from aristocratic families. This was also true of the second and third generation of abbots at the Columbanian foundations. Bertulf, abbot of Bobbio, was of noble birth and related to the bishop of Metz.8 Athala, also of Bobbio, was associated with Bishop Arigius of Lyons before entering Luxeuil.9 Eustasius, abbot of Luxeuil, was tied to a high-ranking family and was the nephew of the bishop of Langres.10 Thus Columbanian abbots had close, personal ties with the aristocracy that no doubt influenced their political decisions. In book 1 of the Life of Columbanus, Jonas relates Columbanus’ interactions with a number of aristocrats. By the 620s, the children of these men were gaining power in both ecclesiastical and secular positions, and supporting the Columbanian tradition.11 For example, after his exile from Burgundy, Columbanus met Chagneric, count of Meaux.12 In the post–615 period, Chagneric’s son, Chagnoald, became bishop of Laon.13 His daughter, Burgundofara, became first abbess of the monastery of Faremoutiers.14 For a time, her brother Chagnoald and Waldebert, future abbot of Luxeuil, supervised this foundation.15 Burgundofaro, who was probably Burgundofara’s brother, became bishop of Meaux and was a patron of the monastery of Rebais.16 Eustasius, Columbanus’ successor at Luxeuil, was also instrumental in establishing ties with aristocratic families. On a journey to the court of King Chlothar, he stopped at Chagneric’s villa and assisted Burgundofara in entering the religious life.17 On another occasion, when Eustasius was returning from Bavaria, he visited the villa of Duke Gundoin. While there, he healed the duke’s daughter, Sadalberga, of blindness.18 Sadalberga later, with the help of then Abbot Waldebert of Luxeuil, founded a monastery at Laon under the Columbanian Rule and became its first abbess.19

48


Part of the attraction of Columbanian monasticism for the aristocracy may have been Columbanus’ preference for rural monasteries. Traditionally in Gaul, foundations had been associated with large basilicas, often with royal patronage. Columbanian houses, on the other hand, tended to be located on rural estates or on land given by the king to a lord specifically for the establishment of a new community. By appointing family members to lead these new foundations, aristocrats could expand their own power and authority since this land remained under their jurisdiction.20 This was especially true for women’s communities where land that might have passed to another through marriage stayed in the family’s control as long as female descendants headed the foundation.21 Especially from the 630s onward, the Columbanian tradition had the support of many of the Merovingian bishops. This included a number who had spent time at a Columbanian monastery and those who had not.22 Relations with the Merovingian and Lombard royal courts continued in the post–615 period as well. For instance Dagobert (623–38) founded communities with the Columbanian or mixed rule at Solignac, Saint-Amand, and Rebais.23 Queen Balthild (d. 680) founded Chelles and Corbie and was a patron of Luxeuil, Faremoutiers, and Jouarre.24 She also established monastic communities at the “senior basilicas,” which may have used a mixed rule of Columbanian influence. By the late 620s, these changes were under way. The number of monasteries associated with Columbanian tradition had grown dramatically since 615, and some of those trained at Luxeuil and her associated monasteries were becoming leaders in the church. By the 660s, there were numerous monastic houses using a mixed rule influenced at least in part by Columbanus’. However, it is important not to view “Columbanian monasticism” as a monolithic movement under the jurisdiction of Luxeuil. Instead what the post–615 period witnessed was the integration of some aspects of the Columbanian tradition into the wider Frankish Church. In turn, Luxeuil and other Columbanian houses were transformed through the adoption of new practices and ideas.

Eustasius, Agrestius, and the Synod of Mâcon (626/27) There are a number of conflicts discussed in book 2 of the Life of Columbanus, but one of the most interesting concerns Eustasius, abbot of Luxeuil, Agrestius, one of his monks, and the Synod of Mâcon held in c.626/27.25 This portion of the Life is critical in reconstructing a very


49

important period in the history of the Columbanian tradition. In addition, it highlights the problems historians face when they must rely on only one primary source to analyze events.

Jonas’ Version of Events According to Jonas, Agrestius was a notary who had served under King Theuderic, but then entered Luxeuil while Eustasius was abbot. Against Eustasius’ advice, he traveled to convert the Bavarians. When he was unsuccessful as a missionary, he went to northern Italy and became a supporter of the schismatic Church that had broken communion with Rome over the Three Chapters controversy.26 Agrestius wrote a letter to Athala, abbot of Bobbio, trying to convince him to join the schismatic Church. When this was unsuccessful, he returned to Luxeuil, but also was unable to persuade Eustasius to turn against Rome. Eustasius was eventually forced to expel Agrestius from the monastery. In retaliation, the rebel monk devised a plan to discredit Eustasius and Luxeuil. He accused the monastery of following heretical practices and he obtained the support of his relative, Bishop Abelenus of Geneva and Warnachar, maior of the Burgundian court, along with other bishops and aristocrats. Even King Chlothar II, presented in book 1 of the Life as one of the major supporters of Columbanus, was persuaded to call a synod at Mâcon to discuss the matter. Jonas explains, however, that the king did not doubt the sanctity of Eustasius and knew that the abbot could easily refute his critics.27 In c.626/27, the bishops came together to hear the case against the Columbanian tradition. Just before the synod began, Warnachar died. However, even with one of his major supporters dead, Agrestius still appeared before the bishops and accused Luxeuil of heresy. His evidence was that the Columbanian Rule advocated making the sign of the cross over inanimate objects, such as spoons; that it required the brothers to ask for a blessing when coming in and out of rooms; and that it used too many prayers and collects in the Mass.28 Eustasius was easily able to explain these practices. Having been refuted, Agrestius added that the tonsure worn by the Columbanian monks also differed from that used throughout the Church.29 In so far as Jonas has presented the synod, this did not worry the bishops and they dismissed all charges against Eustasius.

Agrestius’ Role The above is Jonas’ version of events. Although the narrative is well constructed, there are places where it is clear that more had to be going on than

50


Jonas implies.30 If the historian were to blindly accept Jonas’ narrative, it would appear that the ecclesiastical and secular leadership in Gaul had no real concerns about the Columbanian tradition. Instead, due to jealousy and pride, three lone people—Agrestius, Abelenus, and Warnachar—stirred up dissention for their own selfish reasons. Since the bishops were able to see through their lies, Eustasius, Luxeuil, and the Columbanian monasteries were exonerated. In Jonas’ narrative of the events surrounding the Synod of Mâcon, he may well have exaggerated Agrestius’ importance.31 Using book 1 for comparison, Jonas magnified Brunhild’s role in the controversy that led to Columbanus’ exile by implying that all episcopal opposition was actually a result of her political pressure. By using Agrestius as the focus for the Synod of Mâcon, Jonas helps the reader to conclude that most of the opposition Eustasius’ faced came from an immature, disobedient, schismatic monk and his political supporters.32 Thus, Agrestius and Warnachar play the same roles as Brunhild and Theuderic in explaining issues of controversy. In book 1, all conflict was due to Brunhild’s jealousy and Theuderic’s pride. In book 2, the problems Eustasius faced were because of Agrestius’ resentment and Warnachar’s political maneuvering. By constructing the narrative in such a way that the focus remains on a specific enemy of the Columbanian tradition, Jonas can “explain” the conflict that surrounded Columbanus and his successors without raising questions as to whether there was any substantive support for these accusations.

The Accusations against the Columbanian Tradition Agrestius’ allegations, at least as Jonas presents them, seem insignificant. Jonas also gives the impression that the bishops were frustrated that a synod had been called for such minor issues. Eustasius argued that there was nothing wrong with making the sign of the cross over a spoon or any other object. Asking for a blessing when entering or leaving a brother’s cell or saying extra prayers only fulfilled biblical injunctions.33 The only hint that the bishops were concerned about these practices is the fact that they asked Eustasius to respond to Agrestius. Agrestius next accused the Columbanian monks of using a tonsure that differed from the rest of the Church.34 It can be assumed that this was the Celtic tonsure.35 As Jonas would never have included any information that would have compromised the reputation of the Columbanian tradition, it can be reasoned that the Celtic tonsure was not yet controversial. It was only


51

as the Easter controversy continued past the 640s that the style of tonsure became symbolic of the supporters of the Celtic or Roman tables. Although the tonsure does not appear to have been a major issue in c.640, Jonas still does what he can in the narrative to disparage Agrestius’ accusation. He portrays Agrestius as stuttering and clearly nervous, as if he was desperate to find something about the Columbanian tradition that the bishops would condemn. Jonas includes no reply by Eustasius, leading the reader to believe that the allegation was so ridiculous the bishops did not bother asking the abbot to respond. If by any chance the tonsure was beginning to be of concern in c.627 or c.640, Jonas’ presentation gives the reader no indication that this was the case.

Easter One matter possibly discussed at Mâcon was the Celtic-84. If the synod met to discuss the heretical or schismatic aspects of the Columbanian tradition, it is unlikely that there was no mention of the Celtic Easter table.36 In the period leading up to 625, each table listed Easter dates that supporters of the rival table would have considered especially troublesome (table 3.1). Take for example the Easter dates in 627. The Celtic-84 table stated that Easter should occur on April 5 or luna 17, but for those using the Victorian table, the 5th was luna 14, a date that clearly had problems. The Victorian table listed April 12 as luna 21, but on the Celtic-84, this was luna 24, a date far past the acceptable lunar limits. Given the increasingly divergent lunar dates, it can be assumed that the Easter controversy continued to be an important issue in the Merovingian Church. Though the Easter tables had generally not agreed, in 625, 628, and 629, the Celtic-84 and Victorian tables listed the same dates. It is interesting that the Synod of Mâcon was held in the midst of this period when the tables were in general agreement. If the Columbanian communities abandoned the Celtic-84 in 627, the 628–29 period would have provided a two-year span to ensure that all communities had copies of the Victorian table. This would have eased the transition to a new Easter calculation. Though Jonas provides no information about Easter, it was probably discussed at Mâcon. If historians did not have Columbanus’ letters to supplement book 1 of the Life of Columbanus, it would be easy to assume that Easter was not an issue of dispute during his lifetime either. We do know that by the early 640s when Jonas was writing the Life, the Columbanian houses had abandoned the Celtic-84. Furthermore, Jonas took great pains to suppress the information that the saint and his monastic foundations had followed a table then regarded by some as heretical.37 It seems likely that as

52


Table 3.1 Comparative Easter dates, 620–41 Celtic-84 Easter 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641

Luna

April 20 April 12 March 28 April 17 April 8 March 31 April 13 April 5 March 27 April 16 April 1 April 21 April 12 March 28 April 17 April 9 April 21 April 13 April 5 April 18 April 9 April 1

16 18 14 16 17 20 14 17 19 20 16 18 19 15 17 20 14 16 19 14 15 18

Victorian Luna (Victorian) 13 15 11 14 14 17 11 14 16 17 13 15 16 13 14 17 11 13 16 11 12 15

Easter

Luna

March 30 April 19 April 4 March 27 April 15 March 31 April 20 April 12 March 27 April 16 April 8 March 24 April 12 April 4 April 24 April 9 March 31 April 20 April 5 March 28 April 16 April 1 or 8

21 22 18 21 21 17 18 21 16 17 20 16 16 20 21 17 19 20 16 19 19 15/22

Luna (Celtic-84) 24 25 21 23 24 20 21 24 19 20 23 19 19 22 24 20 22 23 19 22 22 18/25

Note: Bold ⫽ tables in agreement Source: Celtic-84 Easter and luna dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19, modernized and cycled by C. Corning; Victorian Easter and luna dates calculated using Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion, pp. 821–22 with modifications as indicated by Jones, “The Victorian and Dionysiac,” p. 411; alternative luna dates and all other adjustments for Victorian dating by C. Corning.

at the Council of Chalon in c.603, Easter was a concern and there was enough interest in this topic for some bishops to want a church council to discuss the matter. That Easter was discussed at Mâcon is supported by the fact that the monastery of Bobbio received a papal exemption from episcopal interference in 628. Jonas is clear that Bobbio and Luxeuil followed the same practices. It is hard to believe that the papacy would have granted an exemption to Bobbio had it been following the alternative Easter. If, on the other hand, Luxeuil and Bobbio had abandoned the Celtic Easter in 627, and if both


53

supported a position of loyalty to Rome rather than schism, it would be understandable why papal protection was given in 628. In addition, an earlier Merovingian Church council was called by Chlothar in 626/27 at Clichy.38 Unlike Mâcon, this council had representatives from Neustria as well as Burgundy. Among other things, the council resolved that bishops and priests should track down heretics in order to ensure the triumph of the Catholic faith.39 The records of Clichy make no mention of the Columbanian tradition or Easter, but it is intriguing that the Synod of Mâcon met so soon after Clichy since it demonstrates that heresy was a current topic of conversation in 626. It seems likely that the Columbanian communities continued to use the Celtic-84 table until just after the Synod of Mâcon. This would explain both Agrestius’ accusations of heresy and the fact that the papacy was supporting Bobbio by 628. Since Jonas did not want to point out that Columbanus had once advocated an heretical table, he simply avoided all mention of this subject.

The Role of Secular Officials Another indication that the Synod of Mâcon was more important than Jonas implies is the participation of Warnachar and Chlothar in the events leading up to the council. Warnachar was the Burgundian maior. The person who occupied this office was usually the highest ranking noble after the king. According to Fredegar, Warnachar had been an important noble at Theuderic’s court and had originally supported Brunhild. However, after discovering a letter in which Brunhild ordered his death, Warnachar switched his support to Chlothar.40 After Theuderic died, Chlothar conquered Burgundy and disposed of Theuderic’s heirs. Warnachar helped to arrest Brunhild and handed her over to Chlothar to be executed. Possibly because of his loyal service, Chlothar appointed Warnachar maior in Burgundy.41 As Chlothar was rarely in Burgundy, its maior became very powerful under his rule.42 Jonas makes it clear that the Synod of Mâcon involved only the Burgundian bishops. Therefore, it is not surprising that Agrestius and Abelenus approached Warnachar with the idea of a synod to condemn the Columbanian tradition. He was one of the highest ranking nobles in the kingdom and his support would be needed to convince the king to call a synod. Chlothar, at least according to the Life of Columbanus, had been a major supporter of Columbanus and his monasteries since 613. It is hard to explain why Chlothar allowed the council to be held since, in theory, he could have refused to call the bishops together. It is possible, as Jonas indicates, that he

54


assumed the case would be decided in Luxeuil’s favor. In this way the synod would actually strengthen the Columbanian tradition rather than weaken it. He also may have believed that this was an issue that dealt primarily with the Burgundian kingdom and thus decided not to interfere. He did not attend the council himself. Warnachar was the most important secular official there. The relationship between the Burgundian maior and his king is difficult to reconstruct.43 Chlothar visited Burgundy only once while he was king, leaving the day-to-day matters of the kingdom in Warnachar’s hands. Jonas states that it was Warnachar who appointed Bishop Treticus of Lyons, a known enemy of Eustasius, to lead the council.44 If it is true that Chlothar supported Eustasius while Warnachar was against him, then the Synod of Mâcon could represent one piece in a larger political struggle between the king and his maior.

Summary Jonas presents the synod as a sweeping victory for Eustasius and Luxeuil. Looking closely at the evidence, however, it appears to have been more of a compromise than a unanimous statement of approval for the Columbanian tradition. In the wake of Mâcon, Luxeuil and her associated monasteries were forced to abandon the Celtic-84 Easter table and, most likely, the Celtic tonsure. However, the use of extra blessings and prayers was seen as part of the liturgical variations of the day and nothing of major concern. Since Jonas is the only source who mentions the synod, many questions are left unanswerable. In the Life, Agrestius is presented as the main scapegoat for all the conflict that led to Mâcon, but the situation was more complex than this. It would be helpful to know which bishops attended the synod and their affiliations for or against Luxeuil. Unfortunately, Jonas gives the names of only two bishops: Abelenus of Geneva and Treticus of Lyons. The council records from Clichy add a few more names, but not many. The maximum possible attendance at Mâcon was six metropolitans and thirty-six bishops. Of these, it is possible to identify twenty-three of them, but for only five can their political leanings be determined.45 Knowledge of the familial and secular connections of the bishops as well as the relationship between Chlothar and Warnachar would help to determine the role of politics at Mâcon. Two things are known with certainty. First, the bishops had true concerns about the Columbanian tradition. Second, politics were involved at some level. It is the relationship between the two that cannot be identified. The increasing power of Luxeuil and the nobles and bishops associated with this tradition could well have influenced those attending Mâcon, not to mention the relationship with Chlothar and the Burgundian court. Therefore, historians know that Jonas is not giving


55

us the whole story. His goal in writing the Life was to prove that God, the State, and the Church favored Columbanus and his successors, not to provide an objective record of this council.

Bobbio and External Conflict Soon after the Synod of Mâcon, Bobbio faced its own challenges. Jonas states that c.628, Probus, bishop of Tortona, attempted to exert firmer control over Bobbio. Jonas explains that Probus was motivated by pride and that the only way he gained support from other bishops and aristocrats was through bribery.46 Thus, Jonas, as usual, discounts the notion that the bishop and his supporters had any real grievances: rather all the opposition Bobbio faced was due to pride and greed. Probus and his supporters attempted to obtain the backing of the Lombard King Arioald (626–36). He refused to become involved and instead told them to look to canon law. Bertulf, abbot of Bobbio, contacted the king as well and received support for a journey to Rome to petition the pope for assistance.47 Bertulf and a number of monks, including Jonas, then traveled to the court of Pope Honorius (625–38).48 Once in Rome, Bertulf was able to present his case to the pope. According to Jonas, Honorius was impressed by Bertulf ’s humility and way of life. He encouraged him to continue to fight the spread of Arianism and granted Bobbio a papal privilege removing the monastery from episcopal control.49 Next, Jonas relates that Bertulf became deathly ill traveling back to Bobbio. On the feast day of Sts. Peter and Paul (June 28), St. Peter appeared in a vision and healed him.50 This was obviously a very appropriate vision for an abbot who was an “ally” of the papacy and a clear sign that St. Peter approved of the Columbanian tradition. One reason Jonas included this narrative was because of his desire to discuss the background of Honorius’ papal privilege. This was an important event in the history of Bobbio. The granting of the papal exemption removing the monastery from episcopal control was proof that the papacy endorsed the Columbanian tradition. Without the knowledge of Columbanus’ letters, it would appear to the reader that the first time anyone from a Columbanian foundation approached Rome, the papacy responded with unrestricted approval. The privilege granted by Honorius provided Bobbio with more independence from episcopal authority than any previous papal privilege had allowed, though it did place the monastery directly under papal supervision.51 Looking at the wider political situation, there were a number of reasons for

56


Honorius to grant such a petition. First, much of the northern Italian Church was still in schism with Rome over the Three Chapters controversy.52 In 628, the Archbishopric of Istria had two archbishops: the schismatic bishop located at Aquileia and the orthodox bishop at Grado.53 The Archbishop of Milan had transferred his support to the papacy, but many of his suffragans had not.54 Therefore, the Three Chapters remained a major issue in the Lombard kingdom.55 Columbanus had questioned the papal position on the Three Chapters in his letter to Pope Boniface in c.613, but he never advocated splitting from Rome.56 Jonas includes the information that Agrestius, who supported the schismatic position, wrote a letter to Athala encouraging him to condemn the papacy. However, Athala refused.57 According to Jonas, Eustasius also would not break from Rome.58 Thus, there was a history of support from the Columbanian monasteries for the papacy. In addition, it is clear that Athala and Eustasius supported the papal condemnation of the Three Chapters, unlike Columbanus. With the schism in northern Italy and remembering that by 628 Bobbio had abandoned the alternative Celtic practices, it is understandable that Honorius would extend protection to this monastery, especially if he felt he could not trust the loyalty of the bishop of Tortona.59 Things were complicated in Lombardy by the presence of a king who was Arian. While the previous king, Adaloald, had been a schismatic Christian, in 626 he was deposed and Arioald became king.60 The situation was a blow for Honorius, not only because the king was Arian, but also because the pope had actively supported Adaloald.61 An interesting aspect of the coup is that at least some of the bishops in northern Italy supported Arioald, thus placing Honorius and the Lombard episcopacy on opposite sides. Remembering that Bobbio was a royal monastery and, if Jonas is correct, Bertulf had received royal support to go to Rome, Honorius may have felt that it was a wise political move to favor a monastery that traditionally had close ties with the Lombard court. In addition, the Pope encouraged Bertulf to continue to fight Arianism. Honorius may have hoped that Bobbio’s ties to the Lombard court would provide Bertulf the opportunity to convince Arioald to abandon his heretical ways. Involvement in a dispute with the episcopal hierarchy would have only distracted Bertulf from this mission.

Summary Unlike the situation surrounding the Synod of Mâcon, the conflict between Bobbio and the bishop of Tortona in c.628 appears to have had nothing to


57

do with the alternative Celtic practices. Like Luxeuil, Bobbio had a group of associated monasteries whose abbots came from important families thereby increasing the monastery’s political power. It is possible that Bobbio had been granted royal protection from its founding, but with the ascension of a new king, this alliance may have been in doubt. It is also possible that Probus saw the period c.626–28 as an excellent opportunity to assert more control over Bobbio and its network of monasteries while the crown was busy attempting to solidify its own power. This conflict precipitated the events that would end in a papal privilege for Bobbio and cement its importance in the Italian Church. Pope Honorius saw a number of benefits in granting such independence to Bobbio. First, the monastery had abandoned its alternative Celtic practices and was firmly in the pro-papal camp. Since the court supported Arianism, and much of the Lombard Church refused to acknowledge the papacy, it was critically important that Honorius support those who were willing to ally with Rome. In addition, as was mentioned in chapter 2, the papacy had been granting more limited papal protection to monastic houses, especially those with royal protection, since the late sixth century. Though Honorius granted Bobbio the most extensive papal privilege to date, this should not be viewed as a radical break, but a logical development. Church councils, individual bishops, and the popes had all been protecting monastic rights for decades.

Internal Dissension in the Columbanian Tradition Book 2 of the Life of Columbanus opens with a rebellion at Bobbio while Athala (615–26) was abbot.62 Many of the monks were upset with the Rule and rebelled against their abbot. Those monks, “stained with the vice of arrogance,” were punished by God.63 Jonas reports that one monk died of fever, another was killed by an axe and two others drowned: one while crossing a small stream and another when his boat sank. When the other disobedient monks heard of these deaths, they repented. As always, Jonas’ narratives leave little doubt as to who was in the right. There also appears to have been problems at Faremoutiers where Burgundofara was abbess. There are four stories of nuns who attempted to leave the monastery or who refused to follow the Rule because they were led away by the devil and/or due to their own arrogance and pride.64 Jonas states that all of these women were unable to handle the “unaccustomed discipline” of the convent. However, the reader is given the impression that these problems were much more limited in scope than the rebellion at

58


Bobbio. It appears that only seven or eight nuns participated in these attempts to escape or disobey the Rule. In addition, after the Synod of Mâcon narrative, Jonas includes information on a rebellion at Remiremont, a monastery associated with Luxeuil. According to Jonas, Agrestius convinced Amatus and Romaric to oppose Eustasius.65 Both of these men had been monks at Luxeuil while Eustasius was abbot. According to the Life of Amatus, it was Eustasius who convinced Amatus to transfer from St. Maurice d’Agaune to Luxeuil.66 Romaric established the monastic community of Remiremont with Eustasius’ permission and Amatus became the first abbot of the new foundation.67 Thus, both men knew Eustasius well and yet still decided to support Agrestius even after he was unsuccessful at Mâcon.68 According to Jonas, Agrestius persuaded Amatus and Romaric to make alterations to the Columbanian Rule in use at Remiremont and to disobey Eustasius. Many of the monks at the monastery supported this decision. Jonas explains that Amatus and Romaric rebelled against Eustasius because of personal grievances, not because there was anything wrong with the Columbanian monastic tradition.69 Having already established Agrestius as schismatic and disobedient, his participation in this event only reinforces the fact that this internal rebellion was all part of the greater plot by Agrestius to attack the Columbanian tradition. Therefore, Jonas once again exonerated Luxeuil from any blame for these controversies. Jonas also includes the information that after the rebellion, rabid wolves broke into the monastery and killed two of Agrestius’ supporters.70 Another monk went insane and killed himself. Then a lightning bolt killed an additional twenty rebellious monks and nuns. The violence ended with the murder of Agrestius by one of his servants.71 Clearly God was incensed with these men and women for questioning the Columbanian Rule. After these deaths, both Amatus and Romaric begged forgiveness and were reconciled with Eustasius. Amatus died soon after this in 628 and Romaric became the next abbot of Remiremont. Both seem to have remained loyal followers after this rebellion. Lives for Amatus and Romaric survive but neither mentions any problems with Eustasius or the Rule. Therefore, just as Jonas needed to construct the presentation of Columbanus and his successor abbots in a way that did not undermine their sanctity, the author of the Life of Amatus needed to counter the allegations of the Life of Columbanus without mentioning events better left forgotten from the viewpoint of Remiremont.

Problems with the Columbanian Rules It is difficult for historians to decide what caused the internal rebellions in this period. Jonas implies there was dissatisfaction with the “harshness” or


59

“discipline” of the Rule, but provides no specifics. It is possible to compare Columbanus’ surviving Rules with the later mixed rules to see what has been changed, but this is complicated by the fact that his Rules include little guidance on daily operations. Since it would be impossible to run a monastery solely on Columbanus’ Rules as they survive in written form, it must be assumed that much of the Columbanian “way of life” was orally transmitted. The monks who rebelled at Bobbio and Remiremont, and those whom Columbanus warns about in his letter to Athala, may have been upset with elements which were never written down.72 It is possible that some of the monks were willing to tolerate the extreme discipline and alternative practices when administered by Columbanus himself, but not by his successors. Two monastic rules by Columbanus survive.73 The first is the Monks’ Rule which consists of ten sections: obedience, silence, food and drink, poverty, overcoming vanity, chastity, organization of the choir office, discretion, humility, and perfection.74 One of the most detailed sections concerns the different times the community should gather together in corporate prayer. Columbanus was particularly concerned that the monks not become too tired praying numerous psalms at the night offices during the summer. Through most of the medieval period, time was reckoned somewhat differently than it is today. While there were twenty-four hours in a day, there were always twelve hours of daylight and twelve hours of darkness. Therefore, the hour was not set at a uniform sixty minutes. During the summer months the night hours would be shorter than in the winter. This meant that the monks had little time to both sleep and participate in the night offices. This was especially true when on some Saturdays and Sundays a total of seventy-five psalms were recited at Matins.75 Recognizing this problem, Columbanus mandated that the greatest number of Psalms would be chanted during the winter months and then they would gradually decrease until the middle of summer. However, it should be noted that even with this sliding scale, Columbanus’ monks chanted an unusually large number of psalms in the night offices.76 Apart from this section and one concerning meals, the Monks’ Rule is largely theoretical. It is concerned with the attitudes and behavior that a monk should cultivate. The second rule, the Communal Rule, closely resembles a penitential.77 This rule is much more practical in application than the first because it lists different disobediences, each with their corresponding punishment.78 It is not well organized or arranged in any system. Section two of the Rule should help to illustrate the point: If he has not blessed the lamp, that is, when it is lighted by a younger brother and is not presented to a senior for his blessing, with six blows. If he has called anything his own, with six blows. Let him who has cut the table with a knife be corrected with ten blows. Whoever of the brethren, to whom the

60

The Celtic and Roman Traditions care of cooking or serving has been entrusted, has spilt any drop, it is ordained to correct him by prayer in church after the end of the office, so that the brethren pray for him. Let him who has forgotten the prostration . . . at the office . . . do penance likewise. In the same manner let him who has lost the crumbs be corrected by prayer in church.79

There is some tie between spilling things while serving and cutting the table, but it is harder to see how claiming ownership of objects or not having a lamp blessed fits with this topic. Analyzing the Rule is complicated by the fact that it was likely revised after Columbanus’ death. There are language differences between the two parts of the Rule, and later sections disagree with the instructions outlined in the Monks’ Rule. For instance, section thirteen of the Communal Rule states that monks should not eat before the ninth hour on Wednesdays and Fridays. In the Monks’ Rule, this is the instruction for every day.80 It is unclear whether Columbanus changed his mind between the composition of the two rules or whether this reflects later additions by his successors. During the early medieval period, each abbot created a monastic rule that fit his monastery’s specific circumstances. Soon after Columbanus’ death, his Rule began to appear in combination with other rules such as Benedict’s or Cassian’s.81 This type of rule is called a “mixed rule.” The Rule for Nuns by Donatus of Besançon is one such rule that combined the Benedictine and Columbanian Rules. From Benedict, Donatus used chapters on the election of an abbess and her character, as well as the responsibilities and character of the prioress, porter, and cellaress.82 He also included Benedict’s discussion on good works, humility, and the specifics on excommunication.83 From the Columbanian Rules, he included sections on gossip, forgetting to bless objects and receiving blessings, those who disturb meals or services, and the punishments for spilling or wasting food and drink.84 Donatus also seems to have used Columbanus’ instructions for meals, though in moderated form.85 On the whole, Donatus adopted Columbanus’ instructions and punishments without much alteration. He seems to have chosen portions of Benedictine Rule more to provide information where Columbanus was vague than to mitigate any harsh aspects of his Rule. When a mixed rule was introduced at Luxeuil and Bobbio, some of the Benedictine Rule was adopted. If the Rule by Donatus is indicative of the mixed rule used at Luxeuil and Bobbio, then it does not appear that this new Rule was intrinsically less “harsh” or “strict” than the older one. If Jonas were correct that the monks and nuns at Bobbio, Luxeuil, and Faremoutiers were upset because the Rule was too severe, then the Rule for Nuns would support the idea that they rebelled against parts of the Rule which were only transmitted orally and thus are impossible to reconstruct.


61

On the other hand, it has been theorized that the Rule of the Master, often attributed to the sixth century, should instead be identified as the mixed rule used at Bobbio by 643.86 If this Rule does post-date Columbanus, then it can also provide information on the problems with the Columbanian Rules. While the Rule of the Master includes some of Columbanus’ advice on the night office and the blessing of inanimate objects, his disciplinary practices have been replaced with the more moderate Benedictine.87 If the Rule of the Master was used at Bobbio, it supports a theory that the monks and nuns were frustrated with discipline outlined in the Columbanian Rules. Thus, the differences between Donatus’ Rule and the Rule of the Master complicate identifying the specific issues that led the monks and nuns to rebel.

Summary Therefore, the fact that Jonas included narratives detailing dissension within the Columbanian houses suggests that there must have been some remembrance of these events, and that Bobbio and Luxeuil wanted to provide an official explanation for the Columbanian communities and their wide circle of supporters. Information about the God-given punishments of those who rebelled would have been an important message from the point of view of the abbots who asked Jonas to write the Life in the first place. It is possible that one part of the rebellion at Remiremont and Bobbio was due to the alternative Celtic Easter and tonsure. There is some hint of dissension at Luxeuil over the Celtic-84 in Columbanus’ letter to Athala, though not in the Life.88 The abandonment of these practices by c.628 would have quelled opposition on this point. Since Jonas does not want the reader to know that Columbanus followed schismatic practices, he simply explains the rebellion as focused on the “harshness” of the rule, thus making the rebellious monks out as too weak to uphold correct monastic discipline, rather than focusing on the need to abandon incorrect traditions. Given the fact that Luxeuil, Bobbio, and the other Columbanian monasteries were using mixed rules of Benedictine and Columbanian influence by the 630s, the rebellions in the late 620s were probably linked to frustration with portions of the Rule left by Columbanus that were seen as overly harsh. The monks may have been willing to submit to such discipline under their charismatic founder, but not from the abbots who followed. The 620s and early 630s were a time of compromise and adjustment for the Columbanian houses. Bobbio and Luxeuil had new abbots: Bertulf (626–39) at Bobbio and Waldebert (629–70) at Luxeuil. Both houses

62


adopted the Victorian table and Roman tonsure and firmly supported the papacy in the midst of controversy. In response to internal rebellions some changes were made to the Rule and even at Luxeuil a new mixed rule was introduced replacing the older one instituted by Columbanus.89

Non-Columbanian, Irish Monasticism on the Continent Columbanus had come to Merovingian Gaul as a peregrinus or an “exile for God.” As mentioned, the idea of undertaking a voluntary exile in order to be dependent upon God was particularly emphasized in the Irish tradition. Therefore it is understandable that Columbanus was not the only Irish “exile” to establish a series of monasteries on the continent. For example, Fursey and his brothers were also important peregrini.90 Leaving Ireland, Fursey spent some time in Anglo-Saxon England involved in ministry and missions before heading to the Continent in c.641.91 The Neustrian maior Erchinoald (c.640–58) helped him establish monasteries at Lagny and Fontenelle.92 After Fursey’s death in 649, Erchinoald founded a new monastery at Péronne to house the saint’s body. Fursey’s brother, Foillán (d. 658), then became abbot of Péronne until he was forced to flee to Austrasia. There a new monastery was set up at Fosses with the help of Itta, mother of the Austrasian maior Grimoald. Foillán also was influential at the double monastery of Nivelles.93 Subsequently, another brother, Ultán (d. 686), became abbot of both Fosses and Péronne. These monasteries would be identified as “Irish” in literature for the next few generations and as late as c.779, Péronne had an abbot of Irish heritage.94 They also became cult centers for Irish saints. For instance, Fursey and his brothers brought relics of St. Patrick to the Continent.95 This is quite different from Luxeuil and Bobbio where men from more local families quickly came to power after the founder’s death. While Fursey and his brothers were important in the Merovingian Church, there is no indication as to whether they used the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure. Certainly by 641, when Fursey arrived on the continent, areas of Ireland had switched to the Victorian table and the Roman tonsure.96 While all three brothers were associated with important families in Neustria and Austrasia, and thus were involved in political controversies, no evidence exists indicating that the alternative Celtic practices had anything to do with this. On the other hand, it is probable that these men helped to popularize penitentials and repeatable penance. Fursey’s Life relates that he had a series


63

of visions in which he saw both heaven and hell. In fact, he was permanently burned from a confrontation with demons. These visions and the need for repentance became the focus of his preaching. Given this emphasis and his Irish background, it is probable that he also would have provided the “cure” of repeatable penance. In addition, the Life of Fursey may also be evidence of developing doctrines about purgatory and the need for penance to continue after death.97

Conclusion By the time Jonas sat down to compose the Life of Columbanus in the early 640s, things had changed since Columbanus’ death in 615. The number of monasteries associated with the Columbanian tradition had expanded dramatically. In addition, these monasteries were supported by royal courts and a number of bishops. This meant that the political and ecclesiastical influence of the Columbanian tradition was assured. However, much of this had been hard won. Both Bobbio and Luxeuil faced major internal and external challenges. In the face of these, the Columbanian houses had abandoned some of the Celtic distinctives first introduced by Columbanus. Most likely in the late 620s, these monasteries adopted the Victorian Easter table and the Roman tonsure bringing them in line with the general practices in Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy. In addition, alterations were made to the Columbanian Rule, mitigating the controversial elements. However, by the 640s changes had also occurred in the Merovingian Church as Irish peregrini settled on the continent. The use of tariff penance and penitentials were becoming more popular, as public penance became reserved for major, public sins. In addition, the mixed rule with portions of the Columbanian Rule was used at many of the monastic foundations in the Merovingian kingdoms. It is probable that the spread of the mixed rule helped to popularize the Benedictine Rule throughout Gaul and beyond. This is important since this rule would eventually dominate monasticism throughout Europe. Even with the increasing use of the Rule of St. Benedict, it would not be until the ninth century under the Carolingian reforms that it would be used more exclusively. Until that time, Columbanus’ Rules continued to influence monastic leaders throughout the Merovingian and Lombard Church. For modern historians studying Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy, it is possible to identify someone as “Irish,” “British,” or “Frankish” but not easily as a member of a wider “Celtic” circle after the 640s. The

64


Columbanian communities had adopted the Roman Easter dating and tonsure and the Merovingian Church was incorporating new ideas about penance, using the Columbanian Rule, founding rural monasteries and sending out their own peregrini. These traditions had become entangled to such an extent that it is difficult to distinguish their separate strands. This is not to argue that the liturgy at Luxeuil was identical to that of Tours or that the monastic rule at Bobbio was indistinguishable from all the earlier non–Columbanian rules. Diversity was the norm in the early medieval Church and was accepted as long as practices did not deviate into heresy or schism. Thus, there is no evidence of an inherent conflict between the Celtic and Roman “Churches” as portrayed in popular literature. Instead, on the Continent, both traditions transformed and influenced the other.

Chapter 4 The British Church and the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms to c.620

At the same time that Columbanus was establishing his monasteries in Merovingian Gaul, Pope Gregory the Great began planning a mission to convert the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms located in present-day England. The pope wrote to leading Merovingians such as Brunhild asking for their support in this endeavor and to provide whatever aid was necessary for the missionaries. In 596, Augustine (597–604/10), future bishop of Canterbury, and his party departed Italy for the north, traveling through the Merovingian kingdoms to Kent where the papal mission established their headquarters at the old Roman town of Canterbury (map 4.1).1 In the first years of the seventh century, Augustine came into conflict with the British Church over their alternative practices, specifically baptism and the Celtic-84. Augustine also wanted the British bishops to submit to his authority and to assist in converting the Anglo-Saxons. However, the British churchmen refused to acknowledge Augustine’s jurisdiction or change their practices.

The Post-Roman British Church It is important to remember that the British Church did not disappear with the withdrawal of Roman troops in the early part of the fifth century.2 Recent studies, in fact, have stressed the continued flourishing of this tradition during the post–Roman period, especially in areas not under Anglo-Saxon domination. Along with St. Patrick, scholars point to the

66

ORKNEY ISLANDS

SKYE

DR UI

PICTL

AND

M AL

IONA

St. Andrews

BA

DunaddDunbarton

A

L

R

IA

D

STR

A

N

D

ATH

Coldingham

Edinburgh E Melrose

CLY

B ER

O R

ED

Hexham Jarrow Wearmouth

TH

EG

Carlisle

U M

Whithorn

IA

N

Ruthwell RH

Lindisfarne Bamburgh

NI C

BR

Whitby

IA

D

Ripon

ISLE OF MAN

EI

R

A

York

ELMET

Lincoln ANGLESEY

GW

YN

E

Chester

DD

MERCIA POWYS

Wroxeter EAST ANGLES M I D D LE AN G L E S

MAGONSAETE E IC C

FED

HW

DY

Dinas Powys

St. Albans

Malmesbury

London

WE S T

D

Map 4.1 Britain

U

M

N

O

N

IA

Sutton Hoo EAST SAXONS

KENT

SAXONS SOUTH

SA XONS

Canterbury

British Church to c.620

67

possibility of other British clergy traveling to Ireland to assist with conversion and provide pastoral care.3 In fact, parts of the Irish Church may have remained under some level of British authority through the late fifth century.4 Even after this, loan words and other linguistic evidence demonstrate continued British influence on the Irish Church at least until the seventh century.5 Documentary evidence from the fifth and sixth centuries also depicts a functioning Christian community. In c.475, Constantius of Lyons wrote the Life of St. Germanus of Auxerre in which he discusses a controversy over the Pelagian heresy in Britain in c.429.6 Constantius portrays the saint interacting with Romano-British Christians, not pagans.7 Gildas’ On the Ruin of Britain, composed before the middle of the sixth century, is a condemnation of the worldliness and sins of British secular and ecclesiastical leadership.8 His work, like Patrick’s, points to a Christian community whose elite were educated in Latin, the Christian Scriptures, grammar, and rhetoric.9 Archaeological evidence as well upholds the theory that Christian communities remained in some areas of sub-Roman Britain. Cemeteries and inscribed stones help to document a Christian presence.10 Place-name evidence and topography also can lend clues regarding the survival of British communities in territories that would eventually come under AngloSaxon control in the seventh century.11 As discussed previously, the invention of penitentials most likely occurred within the British Church in the sixth century. The earliest penitential appears to have been written in the sixth century by Gildas or at least it is attributed to him.12 Finnian, who wrote a penitential that Columbanus later used in composing his own, may have resided in Ireland, but is considered British by some scholars.13 Although only preserved in later manuscripts, the Synod of North Britain and the Synod of the Grove of Victory may be examples of British sixth-century penitential documents as well.14 However, the above evidence primarily applies to the western and northern parts of Britain. For Britons in the southeast, the situation was quite different.15 This area saw the earliest Anglo-Saxon settlement and the replacement of Romano-British culture with a Germanic overlay. Evidence for Christian survival in these areas rests primarily on place-name evidence and the survival of martyr cults. Even within the Anglo-Saxon heartlands of the East where Anglo-Saxon settlement was the heaviest in the sixth century, a few place names retained the Eccles element, which seems to have been derived from the Latin, ecclesia or “church.”16 These may demonstrate local, functioning British Christian communities for some time after the AngloSaxon domination of these areas. There also are spotty reports of the continuation of martyr cults.17 The cult of Alban, a possible third-century martyr, appears to have functioned

68


continuously until taken over by Anglo-Saxons in the early seventh century.18 Gildas also mentions the names of a few Christian martyrs in Britain and the fact that it was no longer possible to access their shrines due to AngloSaxon occupation.19 The Libellus Responsionum, written by Pope Gregory the Great to Augustine in c.601, mentions the existence of a cult center for a martyr named Sixtus, though the community had no details of his martyrdom.20 It is unknown how many other cult centers or memorials may have continued to function for which there is no surviving documentation. Therefore, it is important to envision differences in the continuation of Romano-British Christianity. Scholars disagree with regard to how defuse and numerous the Christian community was in Britain c.400, but between 400 and 600 the Church in areas outside Anglo-Saxon control not only continued to function but provided missionaries for Ireland, founded religious communities, offered an impressive education for some, and was influential in the development of penitentials. It is also clear that the British Church was not isolated, but remained in contact with Merovingian Gaul. In areas where the Anglo-Saxons first gained dominance, namely in the southeast, pastoral care was greatly impoverished.21 Isolated communities possibly focused on cult centers continued, but were cut off from Christians further west.22 In these kingdoms, as the British population was comprised of peasants or possibly slaves, they did not greatly influence the surrounding Anglo-Saxon society.

Sources for the Augustinian Mission There are a small number of applicable primary sources that help historians reconstruct the interaction between the British Church and the papal mission.23 A few surviving papal letters provide context, but the main source is the Ecclesiastical History written by Bede, a Northumbrian monk, in c.731. Obviously, Bede composed his History over a hundred years after the events, but it is still crucial for analyzing this period.

Bede—Some Background Most of what we know about Bede comes from his own works. At the end of his History, he provides a short autobiographical note and a list of the works he had written to that date.24 Bede was born in the early 670s on lands controlled by the monastery of Wearmouth and at age seven was given to the care of Abbot Benedict Biscop (674–89). With the establishment of


69

Jarrow, Wearmouth’s sister foundation in 681, he transferred to this monastery under the leadership of Abbot Ceolfrid (688–716). As an adult, he taught and wrote about the Scriptures and Church fathers, composing biblical commentaries, books on computistics, saints’ Lives, martyrologies, hymns, poetry, and literary studies. He died at Jarrow in 735 (map 4.1).

The History—General Analysis It is important to remember that for the early events in the history of the Anglo-Saxon Church, Bede’s History is a secondary text.25 He had to rely on the sources available and construct a narrative that fit his didactic purposes. Bede mentions that Albinus, abbot of Sts. Peter and Paul, Canterbury provided both written documents and oral testimony about the Gregorian mission and the conversion of Kent. In addition, Nothelm, future archbishop of Canterbury (735–39), delivered the documents from Albinus to Jarrow and traveled to Rome to copy letters from the papal archives. Thus, it is probable that Bede’s account of the mission reflects, at least in part, Canterbury’s view of events. In the introduction to the History, Bede states his belief that history is written for a moral purpose.26 Due to this vision for his work, historians have recognized that throughout the History, the reader is presented with models to imitate or to avoid: the good bishop, the bad bishop, the good king, the bad king, the good monk, the bad priest, and so on.27 Since Bede viewed it as his responsibility to produce a work of history that would edify his readers, he would not present someone as evil and yet prospering throughout his/her life, without the eventuality of divine punishment. This is not to imply that all the information in the History should be viewed as false. However, Bede constructed his material to emphasize certain viewpoints. In the Middle Ages, the historian’s job was to teach through example and to show God working through history.28 Where a modern historian might look to social or economic causes, Bede would have seen the hand of God. In the History, he wanted to tell the story of the trials and eventual triumph of Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England, to encourage the Christians of his day and to motivate the Church to reform.29 The complexities between the interaction of Bede’s agenda and his source material can be seen in Bede’s presentation of the papal mission. His narrative emphasizes the role of the pope in sponsoring the mission, but is basically silent about the aid received from the Merovingian courts. It is only by using other sources that it is possible to reconstruct the high level of Frankish assistance.30 Bede may have decided not to focus on the Merovingians in order to highlight the relationship between the papacy and the English Church, something that was important in Bede’s own time.

70


On the other hand, this silence could reflect the lack of information in his sources. For instance, when Nothelm traveled to Rome to obtain documents for Bede, he may have decided not to copy most of the letters from Pope Gregory to the secular and ecclesiastical hierarchy in the Merovingian kingdoms. It is impossible to know how much Bede was creating a story to fit his goals and where he was limited by his sources.

Bede and the Easter Controversy By the time Bede began writing the History, he had already finished his work The Reckoning of Time.31 This book examined all aspects of the calendar including how to calculate the date of Easter. While all those involved in the Easter controversy would have comprehended the basic issues, Bede understood the more complex calculations and arguments. As an expert in the field, he did not tolerate those who refused to see the errors of the Celtic-84 and Victorian tables. Besides his professional interest in the topic, Bede was also concerned about the influence of the Easter controversy on Church unity. As with Columbanus and others before him, Bede well understood the harm that division could bring to the Church and its mission if it divided into competing groups. One of the major themes of the History is the progress toward unity in Easter calculation among the churches of the British Isles. By the time Bede finished the History in 731, all of the Insular Church except parts of the British had adopted the Roman tonsure and Dionysian table. Bede had only disdain for the British Church and its inability to admit it was wrong in the face of the unified body of Christ. His frustration colored and influenced the narratives that discuss this tradition in his History.

Augustine and the British Ecclesiastics according to Bede In the History, Bede provides information about two meetings between Augustine and members of the British Church.32 The overall narrative can be divided into four major scenes. In the first, Augustine, with the help of King Æthelberht of Kent, summoned British churchmen from the neighboring kingdom to meet at a place Bede identifies as “Augustine’s Oak.” This was probably on the border between the kingdoms of Hwicce and the West Saxons (see map 4.1). Once there, Augustine requested that the British keep the “Catholic peace,” help to convert the Anglo-Saxons, and abandon their alternative Easter dating.33 After much debate, the two sides could not reach agreement.


71

Augustine then suggested that they could determine which tradition God preferred by trying to heal a sick man. The group that was successful would be the one God favored. The British ecclesiastics were unable to heal the man, but Augustine succeeded. In the face of such a miracle, the British agreed that Augustine must be right, but stated that they could not adopt new practices without their people’s consent. Both sides agreed to meet again. Later, in scene two, seven British bishops and a number of scholars, chiefly from the monastery of Bangor-is-Coed, ask a hermit what they should do. The hermit replied that if Augustine was a true man of God and humbly stood when they arrived, they should follow his advice. Next, the two sides again met. With the arrival of the British delegation, Augustine remained seated, thus proving his prideful nature. Angered at this, the British “strove to contradict everything he said.”34 Augustine eventually made three demands: that they abandon their alternative method for calculating the date of Easter, that they “complete” the baptism ritual according to the Roman rite, and that they help to convert the Anglo-Saxons. The British refused and also rejected Augustine’s claim that the papacy had given him authority over the British Church. Augustine therefore condemned them saying that they would face death at the hands of the Anglo-Saxons. In the last scene, Bede reports the fulfillment of Augustine’s prophecy.35 In c.615, the pagan king of Northumbria, Æthelfrith (592–616), attacked the British. At the battle, Æthelfrith and his men killed 1,200 priests from the monastery of Bangor who had come to pray for a British victory. Bede’s linking of the meeting with Augustine and the later battle demonstrates to his readers that, just as in the Old Testament, God still raised up pagan kings to punish his disobedient people.36

The British Church—A Heretical Tradition This series of stories is the turning point in Bede’s presentation of the British. Before discussing the arrival of Augustine, the History does not portray the British in an entirely negative light. Using Gildas’ On the Ruin of Britain, Bede presents the Anglo-Saxon invasion as a punishment from God for British sins.37 However, he also relates that when they repented and trusted in God, they were able to defeat their enemies. Unfortunately, just as with the ancient Israelites, victory led to luxury and internal strife. The British would once again turn away from God and in response they experienced plague and new defeats.38 Therefore, Bede paints the British in a cycle of sin, punishment, and repentance. Bede also includes information from Life of St. Germanus to discuss the Pelagian heresy in Britain.39 According to Bede, the British asked for help from the Gallic Church who sent St. Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, in

72


c.429.40 Through preaching and teaching, he was able to turn the people back to the truth. Interestingly, Bede includes the story of the failure of the Pelagians to heal a blind girl.41 St. Germanus, on the other hand, was successful thereby convincing all that he truly represented God. In the presence of such a miracle, the people fully abandoned false teachings. Bede’s readers surely would have seen the parallel to the Augustinian narrative. Therefore, in the first part of the History, Bede’s presentation of the Britons is mixed. On the one hand, he portrays the invasion of Britain by the Saxons as a punishment from God for a multitude of sins. On the other, he includes stories of early martyrs, presents the British as defeating the AngloSaxons when they relied on God, humbly asking for assistance to combat the Pelagian heresy, and wanting to remain true to the orthodox faith. Once the British ecclesiastical leaders rejected Augustine’s call to unity in Church practices and a joint mission to convert the Anglo-Saxons, Bede’s depiction of this tradition is entirely negative. The British Church is only mentioned in passing from this point in the History always with the reminder that it used heretical practices.42 For Bede, it was possible that before the arrival of Augustine the British were unaware of their error. However, after meeting with Augustine and even, at least according to the History, admitting he was right, Bede had no sympathy for them. The set narratives discussing the British response to Germanus healing a blind girl and Augustine healing a blind man form an interesting indictment.43 While in the past the British had been able to see the errors of their ways, this was no longer the case. Bede uses the British loss of territory and influence as examples of what happens to a tradition that rejects the truth.

Summary Therefore, while Bede’s History is an invaluable resource for the early medieval Church, it must be used carefully when analyzing Celtic–Roman interactions. Bede finished his book in c.731, over a hundred and thirty years after the arrival of Augustine’s mission. This meant that he had to rely on surviving documents and oral traditions. In many ways, for the early narratives, the History is more a secondary than primary source. In addition, in the History, the meeting between Augustine and the British plays a crucial role in Bede’s construction of the British as a heretical branch of the Church. While in the past, they had repented, in this case they rejected Augustine’s admonitions to adopt the Roman rite of baptism and the Victorian table. In addition, Bede believed that they refused to assist in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons. Since the British knowingly discarded the truth and rejected Christ’s command to spread the Gospel,


73

they were punished by God and marginalized within the History. Thus even with his limited sources, Bede may have omitted any positive information he had on this branch and minimized its role within Anglo-Saxon England in order to ensure that his model of the disobedient people was not damaged.

The Issues of Controversy Easter Although Bede is careful not to identify which table Augustine used, all evidence points to the fact that he would have advocated the Victorian table since Rome did not adopt the Dionysian until sometime in the 630s.44 If Columbanus’ comments condemning the Victorian table can be used as evidence for the general attitude in the Irish and British Churches, it is not too surprising that the British ecclesiastics were unwilling to adopt a table they saw as poorly calculated. As can be seen in table 2.2, each table was listing dates that were controversial to the supporters of the other table. According to the Victorian table, the Celtic-84 was listing dates as early as luna 12. For those referencing the Celtic-84, the Victorian table advocated Easter dates as late as luna 24. An additional problem occurred in 604, when the Victorian table listed March 22 as the correct Easter, three days before the Celtic-84 equinox of March 25. Therefore, both tables were listing “dark” Easters and symbolically denying the need for Christ’s grace. Along with the theological problems, there were practical ones as well. Augustine wanted the British Church to assist with the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons. Unity in Easter dating and fourteen weeks of the liturgical calendar would have been important to ensure that the newly established Anglo-Saxon Churches were not immersed in controversy. From the point of view of those using the Celtic-84 table, adopting the Victorian table that had listed two Easter dates in the past and would do so again was not a good solution to the problem. For Augustine and his supporters, abandoning the table used at Rome for one followed by only a handful of regions was clearly out of the question.

Baptism One of the more perplexing aspects of Bede’s presentation of the confrontation between Augustine and the British bishops is the report that Augustine

74


wanted the British to “complete” the baptism rite according to Roman and apostolic practice.45 Unfortunately, Bede seems not to have known what was wrong with the British liturgy because he provides no details in the History. Since such information would have strengthened his case against the British, his silence is telling. Any analysis of Bede’s story is complicated by the fact that there are no surviving descriptions of the British rite of baptism in this period. Some historians point to the possibility that episcopal confirmation of the baptismal candidate may not have been included in the British version of the ceremony.46 As far as can be reconstructed, in the rite used at Rome the initiate was anointed twice. The first could be performed by a priest, but the second unction and laying on of hands through which the candidate received the Holy Spirit could only be administered by a bishop.47 If the British Church did not include the second anointing, Augustine might have argued that those baptized within this tradition had not received the Holy Spirit, leaving the ceremony incomplete. All this is complicated by the fact that there are no other reported instances of conflict over the British rite. Certainly if it was missing a crucial element such as the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, it can be assumed that additional disputes would have arisen. This is especially true if the British and Irish used the same liturgy since the Irish were instrumental in the conversion of parts of Anglo-Saxon England. One possible explanation for the absence of controversy is that the liturgy in question was used by only a small portion of the British Church and then abandoned soon after the meeting with Augustine. The problem with this theory is that, at least when it came to Easter, the Welsh were not in favor of the adoption of Roman practices. Therefore, it appears somewhat out of character for them to have quickly adopted a new liturgy. Another possibility is that there was nothing seriously wrong with the British rite and it was simply the circumstances of the Gregorian mission that caused Augustine to demand that the British use the Roman liturgy. Augustine may have been concerned that it would confuse the newly founded Anglo-Saxon Christian communities to practice two different forms of baptism. It is easy to imagine questions arising over whether the initiate had received the Holy Spirit if some were anointed only once and others underwent a second anointing with laying on of hands by a bishop. In the Libellus Responsionum, Pope Gregory encouraged Augustine to adopt a combination of practices from Rome and Gaul that would fit the new Anglo-Saxon Church.48 Historians have highlighted the fact that Gregory was very open to liturgical diversity. For instance, he approved of the Visigothic Church immersing the candidate once during baptism, even though in Rome it was done three times.49 However, it should be assumed


75

that neither the pope nor Augustine would have advocated a variation of central practices, such as the rite of baptism, within the English Church itself. The church at Canterbury could have a liturgy that differed from that at Rome, but it should use a rite which was similar to all the other churches founded by the Roman missionaries. All evidence demonstrates that Canterbury’s liturgy was profoundly influenced by the Roman one.50 The theory that there was nothing inherently wrong with the British rite is strengthened by the possibility that many areas of the Western Church did not include the episcopal anointing and laying on of hands in the baptismal liturgy.51 For instance, parts of the Merovingian Church may have used a rite that omitted this. Reconstructions of the Gallican liturgy suggest that the officiant, be he priest or bishop, anointed the candidate once who thus received the Holy Spirit. It was only after the Carolingian reforms of the late eighth century, with the adoption of the Roman rite, that the bishop was required to complete the ceremony.52 It has also been suggested that the oldest surviving Irish and Visigothic liturgies did not mandate episcopal participation.53 If these reconstructions are correct and if Augustine’s disapproval with the British liturgy stemmed from the absence of any episcopal element in the ceremony, it can be assumed that Augustine would have requested that the Frankish clergy participating in the mission as well as the British use the Roman rite. If Bede’s report of the meetings between Augustine and the British is correct, he was willing to allow them some leeway in following their own practices. However, diversity in Easter dating and the baptism ceremony were not acceptable. The major critique to this hypothesis is that it does not account for the lack of a similar debate elsewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Church. If the use of a single baptismal liturgy was considered crucial in mission areas, the presence of Irish, Gallic, Roman, and British ecclesiastics in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms should have triggered additional discussion. For instance, Northumbria was converted by Roman and Irish missionaries, but the only recorded disagreements centered on Easter dating and the tonsure.54 In addition, Anglo-Saxon sources from the mid-seventh to early eighth centuries which discuss baptism usually include the need for episcopal confirmation.55 This somewhat undermines the idea that the Gallic and Irish rites did not have an episcopal element. It is impossible to make many definitive statements about the British baptismal liturgy because of the lack of evidence. However, the absence of continuing conflict leads to the conclusion that the British rite of baptism cannot be viewed as a Celtic distinctive that differed in some significant way from the liturgies in use on the Continent. There is not enough proof to state that the Irish and British used the same ceremony or even that all of

76


the British churches were united in their practice. In addition, some historians would argue that the possible reconstructions of the British liturgy are very similar to the Gallican and Irish rites, thereby including the British practice within a much wider tradition than simply the Celtic. However, even without being able to identify the specific problem with the British liturgy, it is probable that the conflict between the British churchmen and Augustine was influenced to some extent by the specific circumstances of the Gregorian mission.

Conversion Issues Along with using the Celtic-84 Easter table, Bede’s condemnation of the British Church came from his belief that they did nothing to bring Christianity to the pagan Anglo-Saxons. However, historians point to elusive evidence that the British may have been more involved than Bede believed. First, in the West Midlands, archaeology and topography suggest that British Christian communities may have been responsible for converting Anglo-Saxons in the kingdoms of Hwicce and Magonsæte (map 4.1).56 Certainly it appears that at least portions of these kingdoms were converted in the sixth century, even before the arrival of the Gregorian mission in Kent.57 Another interesting piece of evidence comes from the ninth-century Historia Brittonum or the History of the Britons.58 This document, compiled c.830, states that the Northumbrian king Edwin (617–33) was baptized by Rhun, son of Urien, usually identified as the king of Rheged, a northern British kingdom (map 4.1).59 This information is incorrect because it is known that Paulinus, bishop of Northumbria, baptized Edwin.60 However, Rhun may have acted as Edwin’s baptism sponsor, in other words, his godfather. As the same Latin word was used for both “baptizer” and “sponsor,” confusion could have arisen regarding Rhun’s participation in the baptism. If this statement in the History reflects any historical truth, it points to links between Rheged and Northumbria in this early period, even though the tradition has become distorted.61 While there is some evidence for the participation of the British Church in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons, it was limited for a number of reasons. First, by the late Roman Empire, being a civilized Roman meant being a Christian.62 Therefore, as the Anglo-Saxons began their takeover of Britain, part of the cultural identity of the British may have been their Christianity. In this dichotomy between civilized and uncivilized, Roman and barbarian, Christianity became a defining characteristic of the British that, like language and history, set them apart from their invaders.63 It must also be


77

remembered that the Anglo-Saxons were the enemies of the Britons. That as well may have influenced their decision not to convert the pagan tribes. Even had the Britons attempted to convert the Anglo-Saxons rulers before the arrival of missionaries from Rome or Iona, it is easy to see why they would have been unsuccessful in areas where the Anglo-Saxons were dominant. Anglo-Saxon kings respected religions that could provide success, especially military victories. Looking at the status of the Britons under Anglo-Saxon control, it does not appear that Christianity would be a very attractive religion. It seems highly unlikely that the Anglo-Saxon kings would have welcomed any religious overtures from the defeated Britons who were peasants or slaves in their kingdoms.64 It may have been different between those in the independent British kingdoms and their Anglo-Saxon counterparts, but the legacy of conflict would have complicated this as well. Ironically, just as the British may have found some level of cultural unity by emphasizing their Roman past, the Anglo-Saxons also sought to identify with Rome. This association could be found through Christianity, but only the Christianity of successful rulers like those in Merovingian Gaul or the old Roman heartlands. The new Anglo-Saxon Church appears to have made every effort to separate from its defeated neighbors and present itself as securely tied into the heritage of Rome.65 Pope Gregory’s letter to King Æthelberht praises him as a new Constantine.66 In the oldest of the AngloSaxon kingdoms, it would take outsiders, representing the memories of imperial power, to persuade the Anglo-Saxon rulers to convert.67

Jurisdiction and Authority Augustine wrote to Pope Gregory questioning Canterbury’s relationship to the Frankish and British Churches. The pope replied that although Augustine had no authority in Gaul, the British bishops did fall under his jurisdiction.68 Pope Gregory envisioned that the English Church would be divided between two metropolitan bishops, one at London and the other at York. Each of these bishops would have twelve bishops under their authority. Thus both of the metropolitan sees in the Church would be located in Anglo-Saxon areas. The British, therefore, were being asked to acknowledge Augustine’s authority and help establish a Church whose administrative focus would be in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. In addition, Bede remarks that Augustine was able to arrange the first meeting with the British clergy through the help of King Æthelberht of Kent, one of the most powerful Anglo-Saxon monarchs at that time. His protection and support of Augustine would have certainly worried the British ecclesiastics.69 From their point of view, they were being asked to

78


submit not so much to Augustine or to Rome, but to the Anglo-Saxons.70 The British bishops may well have feared that acknowledging Augustine’s religious authority would come with secular political ties to the people who had been slowly conquering their land for over a hundred and fifty years.71 Bede’s explanation of why the British rejected Augustine rests partially on the story of the holy man and his advice to follow only a humble leader.72 Because Augustine remained seated as the British arrived, they knew that his demands could not truly reflect the will of God. This story of authority resting in the humble leader evidences possible parallels between Columbanus and the British churchmen.73 Columbanus believed that if both the supporters of the Victorian table and the Celtic-84 were to humbly submit to God, they would be able to determine which tradition was correct.74 Thus it was the humble contemplative who would be able to clearly discern the truth. Since the British were faced with the decision of whether or not to acknowledge Augustine’s authority and to adopt a table they saw as celebrating a dark Easter, Augustine needed to prove his legitimacy. The ability to heal a sick man was a good sign, but his pride meant that the British could not be sure he truly spoke God’s will. All this is interesting in light of a letter from Pope Gregory to Augustine preserved in Bede’s History.75 The pope cautions the bishop to be very mindful of the temptation of pride. Augustine had been given the power to perform miracles by God for the salvation of the Anglo-Saxons. Therefore he should not boast in himself, but remember that all his accomplishments were due to God’s grace and support. The message of this letter fits within Gregory’s emphasis on the need for all Church leaders to be humble and avoid the sin of conceit.76

Purity Issues In his Libellus Responsionum, Gregory answered Augustine’s questions about ritual purity: can a woman enter a church and receive communion while she is menstruating; can a man who has had intercourse and not washed himself receive communion; after giving birth, how long does a woman need to wait until she can enter a church?77 Meens has argued that these questions arise not from contact with pagan Anglo-Saxons, but from British churchmen.78 He believes that the British and Irish literally interpreted the Old Testament on these issues, while Gregory clearly used symbolic meanings.79 For instance, in Leviticus it states that a woman is unclean after giving birth and must wait thirty-three days if the child is a boy, and sixty-six days if a girl before she can undergo the ritual of purification and once again be “clean.”80 Gregory, on the other hand, argues that a woman can enter a church immediately after giving


79

birth.81 If Augustine raised these issues due to contact with British churchmen or those converted by the British, this would help shed light on other areas of disagreement between Augustine and the British ecclesiastics.82 While this theory has been supported by some historians, others point to the Frankish influence on the Kentish Church as a better source for these questions.83 For instance, Stancliffe has argued that Caesarius of Arles used a literal interpretation of the Old Testament when he discussed many of these same issues in his sermons.84 Remembering that Æthelberht’s wife was Frankish, that she had Frankish churchmen accompany her to Kent, and that Augustine himself had Frankish priests assisting him, it seems just as likely that these questions could have arisen in response to interaction with Franks rather than Britons.

Letter of Bishop Laurence of Canterbury to the British In the History, Bede preserved part of a letter from Bishops Laurence (604/10–19) of Canterbury, Mellitus of London (604–19), and Justus (604–24) of Rochester to the Irish Church.85 Laurence writes that it was not until after he and his colleagues had arrived in Britain that they realized the British followed alternative practices. Somewhat later, they learned that the Irish did as well. Although not included in the verbatim portion of the recorded letter, Bede adds that Laurence believed that the British and Irish differed from the Church in many ways and that the Celtic-84 was a major problem. It was because of this that Laurence and his fellow bishops decided to write a letter to the Irish to warn them to adopt Catholic customs. Bede next adds that Laurence sent a similar letter to the Britons but was unsuccessful in convincing them to abandon their alternative practices. Without the actual text of the letter, it is impossible to assess Laurence’s arguments or the issues that concerned him. The letter does, however, demonstrate that Canterbury was still attempting to exercise pastoral care over the British, even after Augustine’s condemnation.

Conclusion In the early seventh century, controversy over Easter dating arose in both Britain and on the Continent. Neither the British churchmen nor Columbanus were willing to abandon the Celtic-84 due to the problems with

80


the Victorian table. Those following the Celtic-84 believed that the Victorian table listed a “dark” Easter by placing the equinox too early and allowing Easter to fall late in the moon’s cycle. Both of these issues symbolically denied that Christ, the Light of the World, needed to die for humanity’s salvation. Unlike Merovingian Gaul, the Anglo-Saxons were still primarily pagan and the Anglo-Saxon Church was in its infancy. As such it could not afford to be divided by disputes and doubts over varying practices. It is within this framework that the differences between the Roman and British rites of baptism may have been critical. It is impossible to tell whether there was something theologically questionable about the British liturgy. That this issue does not arise again implies that either only a small group of the British used this rite and it was quickly abandoned or it was simply circumstances that created the controversy during this period. If the former, this cannot be defined as a practice of the Celtic tradition or micro-Christendom as a whole; if the latter, it does not appear to have been a matter of significant dispute. Contrary to Bede’s claims, the British Church may well have participated in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons in some areas, especially those to the west and north. On the other hand, missions may have been limited for a number of reasons. First, Christianity may have been used as one element identifying the British in opposition to the Anglo-Saxons. Examining Gildas’ writings, the British regarded themselves as a chosen people fighting against God’s enemies. Second, in the oldest areas of Anglo-Saxon settlement, the kings and their courts would not be open to a God presented by those they had defeated. It is also important to keep in mind the reasons that the British ecclesiastics would not acknowledge Augustine’s authority. First, Augustine advocated an Easter table the British saw as incorrect and harmful to the Church. Second, the British feared political and ecclesiastical Anglo-Saxon control; Canterbury’s leadership came with too many strings attached. Third, if Bede’s information is correct, the British were concerned that Augustine’s pride might harm his ability to correctly lead the Church. For the British, his support of an Easter table that listed dark Easters might have been the best evidence of this. Laurence’s letter demonstrates that Canterbury’s overtures to the British continued even after Augustine’s death. Bede only mentions Easter, but the unspecified alternative practices might have included baptism as well. Since Canterbury would still have been advocating the Victorian table at this point, it is not too surprising that the British once again refused to abandon the Celtic table.

Chapter 5 The Irish Church to 640

While Columbanus and his successors were interacting with the Merovingian and Lombard Churches, and the Roman mission was facing problems in Anglo-Saxon England, transformation was occurring in Ireland. The Irish Church never lost touch with trends on the Continent and as the controversy over Easter increased in Merovingian Gaul, Ireland was soon embroiled as well. The process of change in Ireland was slow and far from monolithic, however. While most of the southern Irish Churches switched to the Victorian table in the early 630s, Iona did not abandon the Celtic-84 until the early eighth century.

Laurence’s Letter to Ireland The earliest primary document concerned with the Easter controversy in Ireland is a letter from Laurence (604/610–19), bishop of Canterbury, Mellitus (604–19), bishop of London, and Justus (604–24), bishop of Rochester to the bishops and abbots in Ireland.1 Laurence and his fellow bishops were part of the mission sent to Anglo-Saxon England by Pope Gregory. Unfortunately when Bede decided to include this document in his History, he quoted only the first part of the letter and did not include Canterbury’s argument against the Celtic-84. Laurence states that before he left Rome, he and the others held the British and Irish in high regard. However, once they arrived in England, they discovered that the British did not follow the customs of the universal Church. Laurence continues that only later did they learn from Bishop Dagán and Columbanus that the Irish also used divergent practices.

82


Furthermore, when Dagán visited them, he refused to eat in the same house with the Anglo-Saxon bishops.2 The fact that Dagán refused to even eat in the same room with his counterparts implies that he may have believed that Laurence and his associates were heretics. Church legislation forbid contact between the orthodox and those holding heretical opinions.3 If this is why Dagán refused the hospitality of the Anglo-Saxon bishops, it demonstrates that by the early seventh century at least some of the Irish considered use of the Victorian table a heretical issue. However, it must be emphasized that there is no way to know exactly why Dagán refused to eat with the other bishops. Lawrence and his companions may have crossed paths with Columbanus while traveling back and forth between Rome and the AngloSaxon kingdoms. For instance in 601, Gregory sent letters to a number of Merovingian bishops and King Theuderic and Brunhild asking them to provide Laurence and his party with any needed assistance.4 This demonstrates that Laurence would have been in Gaul at a time when Columbanus and the Burgundian bishops were arguing over the correct Easter dating. Therefore, it is logical that Laurence was aware of the Irish use of the Celtic-84 and the problems with this table. As mentioned earlier, Laurence’s letter demonstrates that even after the meeting with Augustine and the British bishops in c.600, Canterbury remained involved in the controversy over the alternative Celtic practices. Bede states that though the Irish varied from the universal Church in many ways, Laurence emphasized Easter dating. Bede makes no mention of baptism or the tonsure and provides no information on why Canterbury chose to write to the Irish or who specifically received the letter. These are important omissions that complicate understanding the full ramifications of the letter. However, Dagán’s behavior, as reported by Laurence, may demonstrate that Columbanus was not the only Irish ecclesiastic who disagreed with the use of the Victorian table, underscoring the importance of correct Easter dating to the Irish Church.

Computus of Bangor Another document usually associated with the Easter controversy in Ireland is a fragment of text bound into an eighth-century copy of the Gospel of Matthew. It states that “Mo-Sinu maccu Min, scholar and abbot of Bangor, was the first of the Irish who learned the computus by heart from a certain learned Greek.”5 Mo-Sinu maccu Min is Sillán (sinlanus), abbot of Bangor, who died in 610. In the past, some historians argued that Sillán learned the

The Irish Church to 640

83

Dionysian table making Bangor the first of the Irish churches to adopt this Easter calculation.6 However, Columbanus was also from this same monastery and he clearly supported the Celtic-84. As well, there is no evidence of Bangor using the Dionysian table until much later. It has recently been argued that this fragment does not refer to a specific Easter table, but a more general method of calculation.7 Comparing the whole passage to information contained in Bede’s The Reckoning of Time suggests that this fragment describes a method of finger calculation using Greek letters and symbols to represent numbers.8 For instance “A” or alpha is one, “B” or beta is two, ⌫ or gamma is three and so on until “I” when the numbers increase by tens or hundreds, so “K” is twenty, while “T” is three hundred. Therefore, this document does not report that Bangor accepted the Dionysian table before the rest of Ireland, rather it suggests that this community used one of a number of finger calculation methods.

Pope Honorius’ Letter to the Irish Church The only mention of this letter is found in Bede’s History.9 When discussing papal letters, Bede usually quotes at least a portion of the text, but with Honorius’, he simply summarized the arguments. He may have done this to keep the reader ignorant of the pope’s support of the Victorian table. By the time that Bede was writing in c.731, the papacy had long since switched to the Dionysian. Just as Jonas had to mask the fact that Columbanus had supported the Celtic-84 in his Life of Columbanus, Bede would not have wanted to include a letter from the papacy advocating an Easter table considered incorrect by his eighth-century audience. In addition, in the Greater Chronicle, composed about six years before the History, Bede states that “. . . Pope Honorius condemned in a letter the Quartodeciman error concerning the observance of Easter, which had appeared amongst the Irish.”10 The Quartodecimans were those who believed that Easter should always be celebrated on Passover (luna 14) no matter the day of the week. This practice had been condemned at the Council of Nicaea in 325. In the History, Bede was always at pains to explain that the Irish were not technically Quartodecimans because they only celebrated on luna 14 if it was a Sunday. It is thus very interesting that Bede decided to just paraphrase Honorius’ letter and did not include this accusation in the History. It should also be emphasized that as far as the surviving sources demonstrate, this papal letter was the first time Rome linked the Celtic-84 and heretical practices.

84


According to Bede, Honorius advised the Irish that they were observing Easter at the wrong time. He then warned against the sin of pride. The Irish should not assume that they were “wiser than the ancient and modern Churches of Christ scattered throughout the earth.”11 Instead they should adopt a Paschal table sanctioned by the rest of the Church. Bede did not include a date for Honorius’ letter, but interaction between Rome and Bobbio may provide the context for its composition.12 The Columbanian tradition abandoned the Celtic-84 in 627, making 628 the first year Luxeuil, Bobbio, and their associated monasteries celebrated Easter using the Victorian table. Also in that year, representatives from Bobbio were at the papal court to receive a papal privilege releasing them from local episcopal control. It is possible that this is when Honorius learned that the Irish Church used the Celtic-84. He may have reasoned that since the Columbanian houses had adopted the Victorian table, the Irish churchmen might be open to change as well. The pope also wrote a series of letters in the late 620s to the royal court in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria.13 This proves that Honorius was aware and interested in what was happening in the British Isles. Therefore, it seems likely that his letter should be dated to c.628.

Cummian’s Letter on the Paschal Controversy One of the most important sources for the adoption of the Victorian table by Irish Churches is a letter by Cummian, an Irish abbot or possibly bishop, to Ségéne (623–58), abbot of Iona, and Béccán, a hermit.14 In this letter, Cummian gives details about the start of the Easter controversy in the late 620s and the decision by some of the churches in southern Ireland to adopt the Victorian table. He also provides arguments on why the Celtic-84 should be abandoned.

Dating Cummian’s letter does not include any mention of the year in which it was written. It is only by using internal clues and some outside events that historians can narrow its composition to an approximate date. First, Cummian reports that three years before composing his letter, some churches in Ireland abandoned the Celtic-84. Most historians agree that the arrival of Honorius’ letter in 628 triggered this change. It is also known that the Irish were in contact with their brethren on the Continent. The adoption of the


85

Victorian table by the Columbanian tradition in c.627 likely caused debate in Ireland as well. In addition, the Celtic-84 and Victorian tables were in agreement in 629. This would have eased the transition to the new table. Thus, the evidence leads to the conclusion that some of the Irish Churches used the Victorian table in 629. This would mean that Cummian’s letter should be dated to approximately c.632. Other clues help to confirm this date. Cummian states that he did not accept the Victorian table the first year it was kept in Ireland (629). Instead, he studied ten different Easter tables for a full year and then called a synod at Mag Léne to discuss the fact that they followed a table different from that used at Rome (630). All agreed that they should bow to the wisdom of the Apostolic See and adopt the Victorian table. However, “a short time after this” some began to question this decision and representatives were sent to Rome to ensure that the Victorian table was truly used (631). While they were in Rome, the Easter dates listed in the Victorian and Celtic-84 differed by almost a month. “In the third year” the representatives returned and some of the southern Irish upheld their decision to follow the Victorian Easter. The Celtic-84 and Victorian dates for Easter were one month apart in 631 so this fits with Cummian’s narrative (table 3.1). As the two tables agreed in 632 there would have been extra time to ensure all the communities had copies of the new table.15 Cummian relates in his letter that Ségéne (623–52), abbot of Iona, was accusing those who used the Victorian table of heresy.16 In 632, Cummian responded to these accusations by composing a letter to Ségéne and the hermit Béccán. In this, he demonstrates the errors of the Celtic-84 and argues that this table is the one with heretical overtones. He encourages Ségéne to adopt the Victorian table in order to celebrate Easter at the same time as the rest of the Church.

Arguments in the Letter Cummian writes that he consulted Scripture, the Church fathers, synodical rulings, and ten different Easter tables during a year of studying the controversy.17 He begins his arguments by quoting Old Testament verses about Passover emphasizing that luna 14 is a day of sacrifice. If Christ is the Passover lamb then his death, not his resurrection should be associated with this day. He then includes passages from Jerome, Ambrosiaster, and Origen all of which affirm that Passover should be celebrated on luna 14 and the Feast of Unleavened Bread from luna 15 to 21.18 From the Book of Questions he adds the information that Easter cannot fall on luna 14 or 15 because if Christ died on luna 14, then his resurrection did not occur until luna 16.19

86


Cummian incorrectly thought that Jerome wrote the Book of Questions and Irish evidence shows that he was not alone in this misunderstanding.20 Columbanus had argued that Jerome advocated a lunar range of 14–20.21 Therefore the supporters of both tables claimed to have the support of Jerome. Cummian next turns to the New Testament and uses the Gospels to demonstrate that Passover and Christ’s death occurred on luna 14, that he lay in the tomb on luna 15, and that he was resurrected on luna 16. Cummian claims the entire Church, including that in the East, assigned luna 14–20 to the Passion, luna 15–21 to the Sepulchre, and luna 16–22 to the Resurrection. By allowing Easter to fall on luna 14 the Celtic-84 implies that Christ’s death happened on luna 12. This is before Passover and denies not only the historical accuracy of the New Testament but the idea that Christ came to fulfill the Law and establish the new covenant.22 Cummian also included information from Church councils. He quotes from the Council of Antioch (341) where it was decreed that those who disobeyed the rulings of the Apostolic Sees—namely Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria—should be excommunicated.23 He refers to the Council of Nicaea and the Synod of Arles, both of which confirmed that all churches must celebrate Easter on the same day.24 Therefore, the supporters of the Celtic-84 need to be leery lest they fall outside the faith of the universal Church. He adds that those who used the Celtic-84 in the past did not know they were in error. The same cannot be said for Ségéne and others like him who refuse to adopt the Victorian table.25 As with Columbanus, Cummian reinforces the issue of Church unity by including passages from Augustine, Jerome, Cyprian, and Gregory the Great on this subject.26 To deviate from the Easter table endorsed by the rest of the Church is heretical and places one outside of the body of Christ. He protests Ségéne’s heresy accusation adding that he supports the heir of Peter. Cummian quotes Leviticus 20:9, “He who curses his father or mother shall be put to death” and then adds “what, then, more evil can be thought about Mother Church than if we say Rome errs, Jerusalem errs, Alexandria errs, Antioch errs, the whole world errs; the Irish and British alone know what is right.”27 In another section of his letter, Cummian analyzes ten Easter tables.28 A detailed analysis of each table is unnecessary for this study, but two important points need to be addressed. First, Cummian claims that Anatolius never supported an 84-year Easter table. One of Columbanus’ main arguments in favor of luna 14–20 was his belief that it had been sanctioned by Anatolius, whom Jerome held in high regard.29 It can be assumed that Ségéne used a similar argument since Cummian states that the abbot praised Anatolius.30 Both Cummian and Columbanus are partially right. Anatolius


87

did sanction lunar limits of 14–20 and argued that the Easter full moon could not fall before the equinox; something the Victorian table allowed. On the other hand, he also believed that his calculations could fit within a nineteen-year cycle.31 Therefore, neither the Celtic-84 nor the Victorian table aligned with the criteria Anatolius established for Easter dating. Another interesting point about this list is that Cummian mentions the Dionysian, Victorian, and Nicene tables. Cummian believed he was using the Nicene, however this council never advocated a specific table. He tells Ségéne that Nicaea should be obeyed, but the specifics he provides are clearly from the Victorian table.32 It is possible that his “Nicene” table listed the Victorian dates, but was accompanied by some of the documentation that normally circulated with the Dionysian leading Cummian to conclude that there were three tables: the Victorian, Dionysian, and some combination of the two that he thought was the Nicene. The Victorian and Dionysian were in agreement during the 620s and 630s so it is understandable that some kind of merger of the Dionysian materials with the Victorian could have occurred. However, historians have no solid explanation for why Cummian believed he followed the Nicene table, or the exact materials he was referencing. What can be said with certainty is that Cummian advocated a nineteen-year cycle with a lunar range of 16–20, in other words, the Victorian table.

Summary Cummian’s letter is crucial evidence of the Easter controversy in Ireland. It shows that regional synods were held, scholars were studying different Easter tables, and Rome was being consulted when a unanimous decision could not be reached. While Columbanus’ letters outlined the major complaints against Victorious’ table by the Celtic-84 supporters, Cummian provides the opposite perspective. Like Columbanus, he provides support from Scriptures, the Church fathers, and synodical decrees to demonstrate why his table is correct. Cummian believed the supporters of the Celtic-84 were heretical because they celebrated Easter on the date of Christ’s death, luna 14, rather than the Resurrection, luna 16. By celebrating the Resurrection on luna 14, they placed the Passion on luna 12 before Passover. This denied Christ’s identification as the Passover lamb who died for the sins of the world and casts into doubt his claim that he came not to overthrow the Law but to fulfill it. Cummian’s argument allows for luna 14 to remain important as it is the day of Christ’s passion. But Easter, the celebration of Christ’s resurrection, should only occur between luna 16 and 22.

88


Cummian, much like Columbanus, emphasized the need for unity. Diversity with regard to Easter was unacceptable because the Church needed to be united in the celebration of its most important festival. For Cummian, however, those who used the Celtic-84 also violated the authority given to the Apostolic Sees, including Rome. Those who used a table different from Rome were outside of Mother Church and were endangering their very salvation.

Synod of Mag nAilbe Another document that may apply to the Easter controversy of this period is the Life of Fintán, probably composed in c.800.33 This text states that Fintán attended a synod at Mag nAilbe where the Easter tables were debated.34 As Fintán was abbot of Taghmon in Co. Wexford until his death in c.636, the synod must have occurred no later than this. Some historians also have suggested that Fintán may have attended the earlier synod at Mag Léne because his monastery was located in the same general location and his Life attests that he had ties to the monastery at Iona.35 All this fits well with Cummian’s evidence of an increasing debate over the correct Easter table in the 630s. The Life states that at the Synod of Mag nAilbe, Fintán argued against the “new order which had recently come from Rome.”36 His statement may be alluding to the papal letter by Honorius or simply the adoption of the Victorian table by some of the Irish Church. Cummian’s letter attests to the fact that part of the justification for using the Victorian table was that it was followed in Rome. Unfortunately for historians, the narrative about the Synod at Mag nAilbe was included in the Life not to discuss the merits of the Celtic-84 table, but as a set piece to show how other Church leaders honored Fintán. The Life records that Fintán offered Laisrén, abbot of Leighlin and supporter of the Victorian table, a choice of three tests to determine God’s judgment regarding the correct tradition.37 First, they could throw a copy of the Celtic Easter table and a copy of the Roman one into the fire and see which one did not burn. Second, they could each choose one monk, place the two in a house and set it on fire. Whichever monk survived would determine the table God wanted them to use. The last option was to raise a holy monk from the dead and see which table he supported. In the Life, Laisrén responds that Fintán was so loved by God that his prayers would be immediately answered, clearly implying that the saint would prevail in each challenge. Having said this, the synod dismissed. Therefore no specific


89

arguments for or against the Victorian table are included. In fact, the actual decision of the synod is unclear from the narrative. The author of the Life was attempting to prove that Fintán was a saint and that his opinion was well respected. He was not constructing this narrative to provide convincing arguments for the Celtic-84. Since this is the only record of the synod, it is difficult to determine when it occurred. It would make sense to place it just after the events Cummian relates in his letter. The Synod of Mag Léne was not an Irelandwide council, but rather a regional one. As those associated with this first synod began to adopt the Victorian table, it may have triggered other regional synods. It is not impossible that Laisrén was asked to attend Mag nAilbe to clarify what arguments had convinced those at Mag Léne to sanction the Victorian table. Keeping this in mind, it seems logical that the synod at Mag nAilbe occurred in 633 or 634. Also in 635 the Easter tables would be in agreement, easing the switch to a new “order.”

Letter from Pope John to the Irish Church There is evidence of one additional Irish synod convened in c.640 to discuss the Easter problem. In his History, Bede included two excerpts of a letter from Pope John to the Irish Church.38 Although Bede did not include a date, this letter can be firmly dated to 640, because John refers to himself as pope-elect and therefore must have written his letter between August and December 640. John states that his predecessor, Severinus, had received “writings” brought by Irish envoys regarding the dispute over Easter. His letter is specifically addressed to a number of churchmen who have been tentatively identified as Tómíne, bishop of Armagh; Columban, bishop of Clonard; Crónán, bishop of Nendrum; Díma, bishop of Connor; Baetán, bishop of Bangor; Crónán, abbot of Moville; Ernene, abbot of Tory Island; Laisrén, abbot of Leighlin; Sillán, bishop of Devenish; Ségéne, abbot of Iona and Saran who may have been a scholar.39 Excluding Leighlin, Clonard, and Iona, all of these communities are located in the north of Ireland (see map 5.1). The fact that Cummian addressed his letter to Ségéne shows that the abbot of Iona had been involved in the dispute since the early 630s. Given that Laisrén appears in the Life of Fintán as a supporter of the Victorian table, this southern abbot may have been at the council to present arguments against the Celtic-84.40 There are a few possible reasons that a synod might have been called to discuss Easter dating in the late 630s. First, the combination of both the

90


Tory Island

Connor Bangor Moville Nendrum Armagh Devenish

Kells Tara Clonmacnois

Clonard Clonfert Kildare Clonfertmulloe

Birr Durrow

Leighlin Emly

Taghmon

Cork

Map 5.1 Ireland

Columbanian communities and some of the Irish Churches adopting the Victorian table would have raised the level of controversy within Ireland. In addition, the tables were listing dates that were particularly controversial between 636 and 640 (table 3.1). The Celtic-84 dates were often before luna 14 from the Victorian point of view. For those looking at their Celtic tables, the Victorian Easters occurred after luna 20 in four out of five years. This was only compounded by the fact that the Easter dates were three to four weeks apart in 636 and 639.


91

In addition to these issues, in 641 the Victorian table listed two dates. This would have added to the confusion. It should not be too surprising, then, that a council was called. The fact that envoys were sent to Rome implies that there must have been supporters of both tables at the meeting and that a decision could not be reached. There may also have been some confusion about which Victorian date to use. A date of c.639 could work for this council since in 641 the Celtic-84 and the “Greek” date on the Victorian table would agree. As mentioned, churches tended to switch the tables just before they were in agreement in order to ease the transition and minimize confusion.

Content of the Letter from Pope John Unfortunately, Bede has included only two portions of John’s letter. In the first, John says that he read the documents brought by the Irish delegation and found that parts of the Irish Church “were attempting to revive a new heresy out of an old one” by celebrating Easter on luna 14 with the Jews.41 Bede adds that John explained they should celebrate between luna 15 and 21. Thus this is evidence that the papacy had switched to the Dionysian table. While the Victorian and Dionysian tables had been in agreement for the past few decades, in 641 and 645 the Victorian table would once again list two dates.42 It is not surprising that the papacy would have switched to the Dionysian table c.640 because of the problems with the Victorian table. It seems likely that John’s accusation that the Irish were “making a new heresy out of an old one” is a condemnation of the Celtic-84 and its 14–20 lunar range. As mentioned, the Church had condemned the Quartodecimans who celebrated Easter only on luna 14 regardless of the day of the week. By allowing Easter to occasionally occur on luna 14, the Celtic-84 created a new variation of this heresy. Thus John is simply refining Honorius’ accusation that the Irish were Quartodecimans. It has also been suggested that John may have been accusing the Victorian table of adhering to the same heresy.43 When Victorius listed April 1 as a possible Easter date in 641, he calculated it as luna 15. However, it was actually luna 14. Therefore, the theory goes, the Irish had already adopted the Victorian table in 640 and wrote to inform Rome that they planned to celebrate on April 1. The pope looked at his Dionysian tables, saw that this was luna 14 and therefore believed they were Quartodecimans. A major problem with this theory is that one of the recipients of John’s letter was Ségéne. Since Iona did not abandon the Celtic-84 until c.716, it seems more likely the Irish ecclesiastics had written about both the Victorian and Celtic-84 tables. Since the papacy had just recently abandoned

92


the Victorian table, they would have known that its lunar range was 16–22 and occasionally 15–21. The listing of April 1 as the correct Easter was simply a miscalculation, not the creation of a new heresy out of an old one. In addition, the Victorian table is not linked with the Quartodeciman heresy in any other document. It is interesting that the pope would refer to this as a new heresy, since the Celtic-84 had been used for generations. Both Cummian and Bede argued that before c.630, the Irish could not be blamed for following the wrong table as they were unaware of their error. Once alerted to the fact that their table was heretical, they had no excuse for continuing to use it. If John was of the same opinion, he might have been referring to the papal letter from Honorius. In this case, the “new heresy” would be only a decade old.

Pelagianism and Easter The second passage of John’s letter is focused on Pelagianism. According to the pope, the Pelagian heresy had seen a recent resurgence in Ireland.44 He reminds the Irish that to deny Christ’s grace, as Pelagius did, and to argue that man can be saved by his own works is to reject the teachings of the universal Church and the witness of Scripture. Clearly, Pope John was linking the Pelagian heresy with the Easter controversy.45 Writings by Bede and Ceolfrid of Jarrow demonstrate that the Victorian table was associated with Pelagianism because it allowed the full Paschal moon or luna 14 to fall before the equinox.46 This is a problem because the full moon after the equinox signals that the new year has begun. To celebrate Easter in the last month of the year rather than the first would be to symbolically deny the need for Christ’s death and resurrection. For those who followed the Dionysian table, the Victorian table was flawed because it allowed Easter to be celebrated in the wrong month. The Celtic-84 also had problems on this issue. In this table, Easter could fall no earlier than March 26, but luna 14 could occur as early as March 21, on the true equinox, but before the one recognized as correct by the table itself. More importantly, by the late 630s, the Celtic-84 was frequently listing Easter dates that the Dionysian table identified as luna 12, 13, and 14—all dates that belonged to the darkness and symbolically implied that salvation could occur through human effort. Therefore, while the Victorian table is more often linked with Pelagianism, it is also possible that this heresy accusation was tied to the use of the Celtic-84 as well.47


93

Summary The letter from Pope John to the Irish churchmen is evidence of the continuing Easter controversy in Ireland. Unable to reach a decision on which table to follow, the northern ecclesiastics sent envoys to the papacy for a ruling. Probably to the shock of those attending the synod, John supported neither the Celtic-84 nor the Victorian table but rather the Dionysian. John condemned the Celtic-84 for creating a new heresy out of Quartodecimanism. On the other hand, he dismissed the Victorian and possibly the Celtic table for reviving Pelagian concepts that undermined the need for Christ’s grace.

Conclusion Irish evidence points to the fact that the Easter controversy was in full swing within a few decades of its start on the Continent and in Britain. In c.628, Pope Honorius wrote to the Irish accusing them of being Quartodeciman heretics and due to this some immediately adopted the new table. In 630, the Synod of Mag Léne met to dispute the Victorian and Celtic Easters. The Irish envoys spent Easter 631 in Rome and Cummian’s letter followed soon after. In c.634, it is possible that the Synod of Mag nAilbe as mentioned in the Life of Fintán occurred. In 639, some northern Irish met in synod and requested a ruling from Rome on the correct table. Soon after this, Pope John responded with his advocacy of the Dionysian table. The story of the Easter controversy to 640 in the Irish Church demonstrates that by the late 620s deviation in Easter dating had become a heretical issue. Ségéne, Cummian, and Popes Honorius and John IV all included heresy accusations in their letters. Churchmen on all sides would not accept the use of two tables because matters of orthodoxy and unity were at stake. While there could be diversity within monastic rules and aspects of the liturgy, to celebrate two different Easters, to diverge on up to eighteen weeks of Church feasts and fasts, would rip apart the Church. The various documents analyzed in this chapter also illustrate the fact that Church leaders often decided to solve the Easter dispute just before the tables were in agreement. Whether Laurence wrote his letter in 604 or 610, the Victorian and Celtic-84 tables listed the same date in 605 and 611. The Columbanian houses probably switched to the Victorian table in 627 and the tables agreed in 628 and 629. The Synod of Mag Léne met in c.630 while the tables listed identical Easters in 632. The Synod of Mag nAilbe may have occurred in 634 allowing for the change in 635. Finally, some of

94


the leaders of the northern Irish Churches gathered in c.639 probably due in part because the Victorian table listed two dates in 641. However, it is also true that one of those dates concurred with the Celtic-84 as well. Another important aspect is the way in which the Church attempted to solve the dispute over Easter. Unlike the individual Merovingian and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, there was no overarching secular leader who could call a church council and enforce its decrees.48 Clearly in Ireland, provincial church councils were called to discuss each table’s merits and reach a unanimous decision. When this was not possible, delegations were sent to Rome to consult with the papacy. Thus the Irish Church recognized the papacy’s role as court of appeals. While some continued to follow the Celtic-84 even after the letters from Popes Honorius and John, this should not be interpreted as a sign that the “Celtic Church” did not recognize Rome’s authority. Like the rest of the Church of its day, it was possible to both disagree with Rome and honor its role as an Apostolic See.

Chapter 6 The Irish Church after 640

After 640, there are no documents originating from the Irish Church that focus directly on the Easter controversy. However, there are clear indications that this continued to be a major issue. In addition, a proper understanding of this period is important because it shatters the traditionally held beliefs about the Celtic Church. Much older scholarly and current popular literature argues that by the mid-seventh century, Ireland had transferred from a Church administered by bishops to one dominated by important abbots.1 This shift remains one of the main pillars in the argument that the monastic Celtic Church was inherently at odds with the episcopally led Roman one; a Church administered by bishops would never accept one run by abbots, or so the theory goes. More recent studies have shown that abbots alone did not control the Irish Church. There were very important abbots, but there were powerful bishops as well.

Sources Collectio Canonum Hibernensis The Collectio Canonum Hibernensis (Hibernensis) or Irish Collection of Canons is a compilation of statements from the Scriptures, the Church fathers, ecclesiastical councils, and other sources.2 It is a practical summary of received wisdom, arranged by topic, into sixty-seven books. It survives in ten continental manuscripts from the eighth to the eleventh century, though it is clearly of Irish provenance.3 One of these manuscripts attributes

96


the Hibernensis to Rubin of Dairinis (d. 725) and Cú Chuimne of Iona (d. 747).4 If correct, this text must date to the early eighth century. The probability of this date is strengthened by the fact that the latest sources in the Hibernensis are from Theodore (d. 690), archbishop of Canterbury and Adomnán (d. 705), abbot of Iona.5 The Hibernensis is important in that it allows the historian a glimpse into the biblical, patristic, and synodical sources available in the early-eighth-century Irish Church. It also identifies some information as coming from either “Irish” or “Roman” synods, implying a split in the Irish Church. Therefore, this document is a key source in the continuing Easter controversy during this period.

Material Associated with Patrick and Brigit A number of documents survive concerning Patrick, Brigit, and their associated foundations, Armagh and Kildare, respectively. Late seventhcentury texts from Armagh include the Book of the Angel, the Life of St. Patrick by Muirchú, and the Collectanea of Tírechán.6 All of these documents include Armagh’s arguments for why Patrick, and by extension his successors, should have authority over the churches of Ireland. There are also records of the First and Second Synods of St. Patrick that purportedly were held during Patrick’s lifetime, but more likely reflect decisions of the sixth and seventh centuries.7 In addition, the eighth-century Old Irish Ríagail Phátraic or Rule of Patrick contains a very interesting description of the responsibilities of a bishop in the Irish Church.8 From the circle of St. Brigit of Kildare, two saint’s Lives survive. There is tremendous disagreement about the date of the so-called First Life of St. Brigit.9 The second Life, written by Cogitosus, is more firmly dated to the 670s or 680s.10 Cogitosus used the Life to support his claim that Kildare should be an archbishopric with authority over all of Ireland.

The Traditional Theory In popular books, many of the ideas associated with the “Celtic Church,” come from conjectures that were originally proposed only for the Church in Ireland. The traditional theories argued that the Irish Church was radically different from the rest of Europe in part because Ireland had never been a part of the Roman Empire and thus did not have cities. While episcopal sees were usually located in urban centers, this was impossible in Ireland. Therefore, the Irish Church focused on rural monasteries rather than urban bishops.

The Irish Church after 640

97

The theory runs that although Patrick and his immediate successors established a Church headed by bishops, the system failed by the late sixth or seventh century. In its place was an organization where abbots dominated the Church and monastic paruchiae, or groups of associated monasteries, reigned supreme.11 This development occurred because the bishops were limited to a specific geographic territory while the abbots were free to found daughter houses throughout Ireland establishing control and influence over much larger areas than any one bishop ruled.12 Thus, the theory continued, in the seventh century, it was the abbots of the major monastic networks who held the power and authority in the Irish Church. Bishops still existed because of their specific pastoral duties, but they were under the jurisdiction of abbots. No longer associated with a specific geographical area and without the resources and funds from their churches, the bishops could not compete with the dominant abbots. The bishops were not sidelined quietly, however. In the seventh century, they banded together as the Romani or Roman party. This group attempted to regain power by advocating Roman authority and traditions. Since the “Roman Church” was episcopally based, this was the model they wanted to bring back into Ireland. The Easter controversy was a part of this movement. It was not that these bishops saw differing Easter dates as a problem in and of itself. Rather, this was one step in imposing Roman practices on the monastic “Celtic Church.”13 If they could convince their colleagues to acknowledge the authority of the papacy in Easter dating, then they might be able to return the Irish Church to an episcopal structure. Unfortunately for the bishops, while Ireland did eventually adopt the Dionysian table, the abbots were unwilling to give up their power and the unique organization of the Irish Church remained until the twelfth-century Norman reform.

Some Terminology Confusion This older theory of Irish Church organization rested in part on some specific definitions of terms found in the Irish sources. Over the past few decades, historians have been redefining what these words mean and this has led to new ideas. For instance, in the past, princeps was usually interpreted to mean “abbot.” However, in the Hibernensis, princeps is used to describe someone who is the head of a church.14 In this document, a princeps could be an abbot, someone who was married with children, or a bishop.15 This variety holds true for many other Irish works from the seventh and eighth century, including saints’ Lives and biblical exegesis.16 Therefore,

98


historians are careful to examine the context in which princeps is used in order to determine the type of Church leader the writer had in mind. The term monachus or manach (Old Ir.), usually translated as “monk,” refers both to those under monastic vows and the peasants who farmed a monastery’s lands. It also is used more generally for anyone who owed dues or tithes to a particular church, monastic or not.17 The term abbas or abbot is used for secular clergy, monks who supervised monastic tenant farmers, and the laity who oversaw management of a church. Basically, an “abbas” was a title given to bishops, priests, abbots, and monks who were supervisors or overseers. Thus, “a small church might have only a very few monastic tenants and no monks proper; its head or princeps might be an ordinary priest; yet in relation to the monastic tenants he would apparently be an abbot.”18 Therefore, the terms princeps, monachus, or even abbas are frequently used in nonmonastic contexts. Paruchia is another word that has caused confusion. Traditionally this has been defined as a monastic federation with a head church, its daughter houses, and subservient communities. Scholars argued that as abbots became the dominant force in the Irish Church, important monasteries established these networks of churches thereby controlling extensive territory throughout Ireland. As these monastic paruchiae grew, bishops were marginalized and episcopal paruchiae or territories ruled by a bishop, disappeared.19 In this model, any mention of bishops heading churches in seventh- or eighth-century documents was regarded as anachronistic. Today, scholars realize that there is no reason to dismiss the primary evidence of the continuation of episcopal paruchiae.20 In fact, seventh- and eighth-century documents like the Second Synod of St. Patrick and the Hibernensis usually associate paruchiae with units of episcopal jurisdiction.21 Only once in the Hibernensis is a paruchiae mentioned in connection with an abbas. However, remembering that in Irish texts abbas can refer simply to a church administrator, such usage does not necessarily imply a monastic overtone to this canon. Therefore, as far as can be determined, throughout the early medieval Irish Church, a paruchia was an area of ecclesiastical jurisdiction that usually was administered by a bishop, but occasionally by an abbot or a nonclerical leader.22 Another term that has seen a redefinition is that of familia or household. In Ireland this has traditionally been seen as referring to a monastic federation. Instead it seems more likely that familia refers both to the members of an individual community, monastic or not, and in a wider sense to a series of churches that were associated with a particular saint. A familia “. . . was frequently identified by the presiding saint’s name, although the name of the leading church to which the familia as a whole owed allegiance might also serve the purpose.”23 A familia has no specific monastic connotations


99

because it was not necessarily headed by an abbot in the traditional sense and its associated churches could reflect a number of different types of communities.

Church Organization and the Role of Bishops As on the Continent, the bishops and abbots who led the Irish Church were normally from important aristocratic families and thus tied to the power inherent in these relationships. The churches, especially the more powerful, had close connections with the local kings and often were controlled by a local kin group.24 This is in contrast to some of the popular literature where the Irish leadership is portrayed as untouched by worldly wealth and ambition. Bishops always remained important and powerful throughout the sixth to eighth centuries. According to the canons, a bishop’s rank was equal to that of a king.25 In the Old Irish legal material, the highest penalties were assessed for injuries to bishops and the heads of the major churches.26 Bishops had important pastoral duties in the Church. They were responsible for ordinations, baptisms, and confirmation. They consecrated churches and acted as confessors for secular lords. Often they oversaw the physical upkeep of church buildings and the community’s interactions with the poor and needy. Bishops also acted as judges in ecclesiastical cases.27 Thus while abbots and nonclerical leaders were often very powerful in the Church, they did not replace or marginalize the authority of the bishops.

Episcopal Structure In the seventh century, there were at least three levels of bishops: those of a single túath or minor kingdom, the bishop of a lesser province, and the bishop of a greater province.28 In the Hibernensis, there are two different models for solving church disputes.29 The first argues that when a case cannot be settled in a lesser diocese, it should be appealed to a lesser province. If a decision cannot be made at this level, the matter should be transferred to Rome. In the alternative scheme, disputes pass from the lesser diocese to a lesser province and then to a greater province and possibly a synod, before being sent to Rome. There may have been some controversy then over what would be the highest level of authority within Ireland itself: bishops of lesser or greater provinces. This may have been a development that paralleled secular politics as kingdoms jockeyed for power and influence in Ireland. Neither kings of lesser provinces nor their bishops probably appreciated the more powerful

100


kings and bishops attempting to establish authority over them. In addition, starting in the 670s, Armagh and Kildare began to argue for archiepiscopal authority. This would have created an additional level of episcopal control had they been successful. It is also important to point out that similar types of struggles for jurisdiction and authority occurred in Merovingian Gaul and Anglo-Saxon England in the same period.30 The fact that in the eighth century, the compilers of the Hibernensis felt the need to include these two canons, and a number of others that discuss episcopal rights and responsibilities, also is proof of continuing episcopal influence in the Irish Church. If only abbots held the highest level of authority in Ireland, why include canons that specifically undermined their power? Just as elsewhere in Europe, the bishops retained their judicial power in the Church. Some of the seventh-century synods also provide historic evidence that bishops remained politically important in the Irish Church. At the synod that precipitated the 640 papal letter there were bishops. In 697, Adomnán, abbot of Iona, called secular and ecclesiastical leaders together to promulgate the Law of Innocents. At least seven, and possibly as many as thirteen, bishops signed in support of this law protecting the innocent from violent attack.31 The fact that these men were from different geographical regions demonstrates that bishops continued to hold authority in provinces throughout the island.

Some Unusual Irish Characteristics All this is not to argue that the organization of the Irish Church was identical to the Continental one. It did have some unusual, if not unique, features. First of all, churches were not always controlled by clerics, but by abbots and even those who were not in church orders. Day-to-day control of the monetary resources of a church could be outside the hands of a priest or bishop.32 In the hierarchies of Irish society, the head of a great church was equal to the bishop of a túath or a king. However, while a bishop’s rank rested upon the fact that he was a bishop, an abbot or supervior obtained his high position by virtue of the church he controlled. Therefore, while a bishop enhanced the importance of his church, an abbot’s rank was dependent upon his church.33 Thus, some monasteries did become quite powerful by heading an extended paruchia or familia. At Iona, for instance, it was the abbot who had the right to select the head of a subordinate foundation in some cases.34 Technically, Iona had superior authority over these communities. In addition,


101

a greater monastery controlled subordinate churches that owed dues, rents, and services. The priests and lay members of these churches would be identified as “monks” in the primary material because they were subject to a princeps, not because they had taken monastic vows. While this same system of greater churches and dependent foundations existed in the high Middle Ages, the Irish Church appears to be unique in having monasteries take over control of churches as early as the seventh century. In addition, the abbots who headed major churches and thus were equal in rank to the bishops, participated in regional synods.35 As discussed in chapter 5, when controversies arose with regard to which Easter table was correct, Cummian, an abbot, organized a synod at Mag Léne. The 640 papal letter from Pope John was addressed to a series of Irish bishops and abbots, whom it can be assumed, were the participants in a synod in northern Ireland. On the Continent, while there were powerful abbots and abbesses, they normally did not participate in church councils. The presence of abbots at the Irish synods indicates that they normally exercised more political power than their counterparts on the Continent. It should also be noted that not only bishops and abbots attended synods in Ireland but so too did scholars and anchorites/hermits. Cummian addresses his letter to the hermit Béccán and Pope John’s letter lists bishops, abbots, Saran who was probably a scholar, and “other Irish teachers.” Other Church councils in Ireland also note the presence of these four groups.36 In Irish law, a scholar or scribe (someone trained in ecclesiastical law and possibly acting as a judge) had a rank equivalent to a bishop or the head of a church/princeps.37 This high ranking accorded to scholars probably explains their participation in church councils.

Summary Thus, the organization of the Church in Ireland was more varied and complex than the older theories allowed. In the past, when historians encountered primary evidence pointing to powerful bishops in the seventh century, they regarded the information as anachronistic. However, in the last few decades scholars have reassessed the evidence from this period. Throughout the Irish Church in the early Middle Ages, bishops remained important and respected. In the law codes, they were awarded the highest levels of honor, and the prestige of a church was based on the rank of its priest or bishop, not its abbot or lay official. The bishops ordained clergy, acted as judges, participated in baptisms and confirmation, and oversaw the pastoral mission of the Church. In addition, not only did the episcopacy remain an influential force in Ireland, it became increasingly

102


complex during the seventh century. Just as some kings were attempting to dominate lesser ones, the bishops of greater provinces were attempting to establish authority over lesser bishops and clergy. Into this, both Armagh and Kildare attempted to establish another level of episcopal authority by claiming to be the archbishopric of Ireland. None of this maneuvering makes any sense if bishops had truly been sidelined from power. This struggle between bishops for jurisdiction and authority also mirrors confrontations in the Anglo-Saxon and Continental Churches. Monasticism is another area where Ireland was in line with Continental developments, but unique in its implementation. The late sixth and seventh centuries were a time when monastic ideals were beginning to affect the secular clergy. Gregory the Great, Honorius, and others admonished bishops to adopt the monastic values of humility and celibacy.38 There were also discussions about the correct relationship between the episcopacy and the monasteries. As was seen in Merovingian Gaul, kings, bishops, and even popes were granting privileges to exempt certain monasteries from episcopal oversight. Therefore, the fact that in Ireland, some of the abbots were also priests, if not bishops, can be compared to the Continent where monks were elevated to the episcopacy and the papacy. These developments may well be part of the same process of the blurring of divisions between the secular clergy and monastics. However, as mentioned above, Ireland was unusual when it came to the power and influence of the abbots of the major ecclesiastical networks. A similar development is not found on the Continent in the seventh century. Even in the extensive network of Columbanian houses, neither the abbots of Luxeuil nor Bobbio exercised authority over their sister foundations.

Romani and Hibernenses All of the above information is needed to discuss correctly the terms Romani (Roman) and Hibernenses (Irish) that appear in primary sources from the late seventh and eighth centuries. As with much else on the Irish Church, historians have needed to redefine these words as theories have changed. Under the old paradigm, Romani and Hibernenses were the names of radically different factions in the Irish Church.39 The “Romans” were the priests and bishops who were attempting to reassert their diminishing power by emphasizing all things Roman. This included not only the Roman Easter table and tonsure, but also respect for the papacy and a church organized around an episcopal hierarchy. On the other hand, the “Irish” were the monastic party that believed abbots were the highest authority and wanted


103

to continue the independent nature of the Irish Church. The “Irish” party was not particularly concerned about Easter, but they entered into the debate because of the issues of episcopal and Roman domination that surrounded the controversy.40 Since historians no longer believe that the Irish Church was locked into a defining struggle between abbots and bishops, these definitions of the Irish and Roman parties no longer apply.

Collectio Canonum Hibernensis The document that mentions these two terms most often is the Hibernensis, the eighth-century canon collection mentioned above. This document lists topics such as bishops, theft, marriage, and so on, and then statements from the Scriptures, opinions by the Church fathers, and synodical rulings about the subject at hand.41 For instance here is a small section discussing excommunication: Book 40, chapter 1: The evangelist: If your brother sins against you, go and correct him only between you and him by yourselves; if he hears you, you have won over your brother, if, however, he does not hear you, invite one or two with you so that every word may stand on the testimony of two or three witnesses; if he will not hear them, tell the church; if he does not hear the church, let him be to you as a tax collector or pagan.42 Paul says: You are to be companions neither at the table nor in prayer, for what fellowship can light have with darkness and Belial with justice?43 Roman synod: The excommunicated are excluded from three things, the [kiss of ] peace, from the table and from mass. Irish synod: All evil men are excommunicated from these things, from celebrating together, from partaking at the table, from cohabitation, from blessings, from the kiss of peace, from free passage, from gifts/alms.44

Thus the compiler has provided four statements on this topic, two from Scripture, one from a Roman synod, and one from an Irish one. By far the most quoted source is the Bible with over 1,000 references followed by the Church fathers and ancient Church councils.45 “Irish synod” is mentioned approximately sixty times, with an additional thirty identified as Irish in at least one manuscript but no more than three.46 There are approximately fifty passages associated with “Roman synods” with an additional twenty depending upon the manuscript. A number of the canons identified as “Roman” can be traced to continental or ecumenical councils, but thirty are unidentifiable. It is probable that these “Roman” canons come from synods held in Ireland from 640 to 690 during the Easter controversy.47

104


At the moment, it is hard to make many definitive statements with regard to this document because a new edition of the Hibernensis is desperately needed. Presently, a printed version of the Hibernensis is available only in an 1885 edition by Wasserschleben.48 It was an excellent achievement for its time, but new methods and sources exist that are not reflected in this work. In spite of this, a few things can be said. First, the information from the Irish synods does not demonstrate a radically different tradition at odds with the practices of the Church throughout Europe. A few sections dealing with inheritance law and property rights reflect Irish culture, but customs varied throughout Europe. It has been argued that the Irish synods better reflected Irish society and that the Roman ones were focused on episcopal power and Roman practices.49 However, looking at the Roman canons that cannot be traced to a known continental synod, it is clear that the Romani were also concerned with cultural issues and placing the Church within the larger social structure as well. For instance, there are canons discussing who can be buried in a church, procedures for paying debts and fines, penances for murder, the different types and ranks of judges and issues surrounding marriage.50 In instances where canons from both “Roman” and “Irish” sources are present for the same topic, often they either do not contradict or do so only slightly. From a Roman synod, the penalty for murder is either seven years exile or a life sentence at the defendant’s church.51 An Irish synod instead says that the penalty for murder is seven years penance under the rule of a monastery.52 In the seventh and eighth centuries, different penitentials often listed conflicting penalties and therefore it is not particularly surprising that there were at least two ideas found in the canons with regard to the penance that should be assessed for murder. Attempting to determine what was implied by the terms Romani and Hibernenses is complicated as well by the fact that there are a handful of canons that are listed as both Roman and Irish depending on the manuscript in question. Two of these discuss debts and sureties, four concern wagelaborers, and one outlines the penalties associated with excommunication.53 The confusion over whether these should be “Roman” or “Irish” by later scribes brings into question the older theories about the disparity between these two groups. There are some canons in the Hibernensis that clearly condemn the alternative Celtic practices. In a chapter on tonsures, the “Romans” mandate the Petrine tonsure. The tonsure of Simon Magus is condemned and then specifically linked with the British.54 A statement attributed incorrectly to Gildas, a sixth-century British cleric, says that the British tonsure is different from that used in the rest of the church and that the British are like the Jews who are in great darkness. One variant manuscript reading adds that they also “celebrated Easter on the fourteenth moon with the Jews.”55


105

Another passage states that ecclesiastical disputes cannot be referred to the British who do not follow Roman customs and depart from the unity of the Church.56 It is interesting that the condemnation clearly falls on the British Church, who at the time of the composition of the Hibernensis would have been the only sector of the Church still using the Celtic-84. It can be assumed that earlier “Irish” synods condemned the Roman Easter dating, but the compilers chose not to include any of these canons. The fact that Cú Chuimne of Iona was one of the authors of the Hibernensis is further evidence that this document must date from after 716 when Iona adopted the Dionysian table. There would have been no reason to include canons condemning the British for departing from Roman practices if Iona did the same. The Hibernensis supports the theory that after 640, the Easter controversy became so divisive that Irish ecclesiastical leaders met in separate synods depending upon whether they supported the Dionysian table or the Celtic84.57 Once each side regarded the other as heretical, it would have been difficult to convene a church council that included those who supported the Celtic-84 and those who advocated switching to the Roman table. Both the canons from the “Irish” and “Roman” synods in the Hibernensis, plus the evidence from other sources demonstrates that Christians were not to associate with heretics. Once all the churches in Ireland had adopted the Roman table, these divisions ended. Therefore, in the eighth century when Cú Chuimne of Iona and Ruben of Dairinis compiled the Hibernensis, they could draw upon rulings from both the “Irish” and “Roman” synods, including a clear condemnation of the British and their adherence to the Celtic Easter and tonsure.

Scholarship There are a few additional documents that mention the Romani. First, there is a letter from a certain Colmán to Feradach stating that he had been able to obtain better editions of some texts “from the Romans.”58 Unfortunately, this epistle is not dated. If it is from the seventh century, it may be referring to the Irish “Romans.” However, it is interesting to note that one of the manuscripts that Colmán reports he received from the “Romans” is preserved in a seventh-century copy from Bobbio.59 Due to the Easter controversy, Irish delegations were traveling to Italy. It would have been possible to secure more accurate texts either from Rome itself or any number of monastic houses on the Continent. In addition, a surviving Hiberno-Latin commentary on the Psalms has three alternative interpretations “according to the Romans.”60 Starting with

106


Psalm 39, this document provides a set of psalm headings describing the context for each Psalm. Irish biblical exegesis as a whole seems to have been very influenced by the Antiocene approach that favored historical rather than allegorical interpretations of the Scriptures.61 For instance, the more historical approach would see the Psalms as reflecting events in King David’s life or Jewish history. An alternative method was associated with Alexandria, which promoted a more allegorical interpretation. In this case, many of the Psalms would be interpreted as prophecies about the life of Christ. For most of the Western Church in the seventh and eighth centuries, it was the allegorical style that was preferred.62 In this document, for each psalm there is a biblical, historical, and allegorical or spiritual heading. The three alternative headings for Psalms 49, 52, and 54 attributed to the “Romans” are historical.63 The one for 49 fits well within traditional exegesis. Psalms 52 and 54 were usually associated with later Jewish history, but the “Roman” psalm heading lists events in David’s life instead. In addition, in this text Psalms 44 and 109 were associated with David even though these two psalms were seen as messianic by the Antiocene School. These interpretations would have been controversial, though they are not identified as “Roman.”64 Therefore, while three psalm headings are identified as “Roman,” two of which were unusual, it appears the Romans were not the only Irish scholars using a very historical approach to interpretation. Therefore, this document provides inconclusive evidence for what might have been distinctive in “Roman” biblical exegesis. These historic interpretations seem in line with the larger scholarly trends in the Irish Church.65 There is one surviving psalter, the seventh-century Cathach of St. Columba, which has only allegorical psalm headings.66 With this slight evidence, it does not seem possible to assign the “Irish” party to the allegorical interpretation and the “Roman” to the historical. It appears that both groups adopted historical analysis to be used in association with other methods. Thus this seems more an Irish tendency than a characterization of a subset of the Irish Church. A fragment bound in an eighth-century Gospel of Matthew includes the reference to “Mo-Chuoróc maccu Neth Sémon, whom the Romans styled doctor of the whole world.”67 This document adds that he wrote down a computus taught to him by Mo-Sinu maccu Min, abbot of Bangor (d. c.610). While it was long argued that this “computus” was the Dionysian table, in fact it was a system of calculation using Greek letters.68 This document, then, proves that the “Romans” were an identifiable group in Ireland, some of whom used this method of calculation. There are other documents that scholars have associated with the “Roman” party, but that do not specifically mention this group. For example,


107

the pseudo-Jerome Commentary on Mark has been identified as “Roman” because it condemns celebrating on luna 14, uses the writings of Gregory the Great, and promotes the authority of the papacy within the Church.69 While the Easter issue does designate this as a “Roman” document, there are problems with identifying a distinctive style of exegesis. Columbanus, who would have identified with the “Irish” faction, specifies in his letter that he has read Gregory’s Pastoral Care and requested additional works from the pope.70 Columbanus’ letters to the papacy and the Irish delegations to Rome demonstrate a recognition of papal authority. In addition, the author of this commentary rejects a historical interpretation of the Psalms.71 This is in direct contradiction to the statements assigned to the “Romans” in the commentary on the Psalms just discussed. Therefore, these four documents do not appear to demonstrate a distinct form of exegesis by the “Romans” in Ireland. They do support the theory that there was a recognizable faction within the Irish Church. However, this may indicate no more than the fact that the Easter controversy split the Irish Church in two from c.640 to 690. Beyond this, it appears that many of the traits identified as “Roman” can be found within the wider body of Irish scholarship.72

Summary In the past, the Romani were associated with a number of different characteristics beyond the use of the Roman Easter table. These included special loyalty to Rome, an emphasis on the importance of unity in the Church, support for the rights and authority of the episcopacy, and the use of a distinct tradition of biblical scholarship and exegesis.73 However, many of these descriptors are incorrect or uncertain. It is clear from the evidence that the Romani and Hibernenses did not represent two radically different factions of bishops versus abbots. It is Cummian, an abbot, who upheld the power of the papacy to determine which Easter table was correct. The bishops and the abbots at the synod in the north in c.640 also sent representatives to Rome to inquire about Easter. As was seen in previous chapters, Columbanus, also an abbot, may have disagreed with Rome about which Easter table was canonical, but he still believed that the pope had special authority in the Church. The Hibernensis demonstrates that separate synods identified as “Roman” or “Irish” were meeting in the seventh century. Examining the canons from these different groups, the only major point of contention seems to be the alternative Celtic practices. No Irish canons advocating the Celtic-84 were included in this document. However, this does not prove that ecclesiastics

108


who attended the “Irish synods” were uncaring about Easter. Instead, it can be assumed that the compilers of the Hibernensis saw no reason to preserve the information that some in Ireland had once advocated an Easter table considered heretical by the early eighth century. Once Armagh and much of the north accepted the Dionysian table in the 680s and then Iona in 716, the Easter controversy was over and unified synods could again be held. Other statements in the Hibernensis from both Roman and Irish synods demonstrate interest in many aspects of Irish society and do not run counter to important theological issues in the Church. In fact, some of the “Irish” canons were so in line with Church thought that they were incorporated into canon law collections on the Continent in the tenth and eleventh centuries.74 The Hibernensis was created to be a practical guide and thus it can be assumed that it accurately reflected the Irish Church of its period. Since a member of the Iona community, clearly a group that would advocate for the power of abbots if anyone would, helped to compile this document, it is hard to understand why statements upholding episcopal honor and authority and clearly condemning practices that differed from Rome would have been included unless this reflected the monastery’s opinion. In scholarship as well the divide between the “Romans” and the “Irish” appears to have been overstated. The documents that specifically mention the “Romans” do not demonstrate an approach to biblical scholarship distinctively different from the “Irish,” and in fact seem to support the general trends in Irish scholarship in this period.75 Most statements are somewhat obscure and can prove little more than the existence of a “Roman” party. Thus it seems that the definitions of these two terms need to be narrowed to reflect only the dispute over the alternative Celtic practices and not larger issues of church organization and scholarship.

Armagh and Easter In the late 660s with the ascension of Theodore (669–90), Canterbury became an archbishopric. This very well could have influenced Ireland because soon after this both Armagh and Kildare were claiming archiepiscopal status as well.76 It is possible that the Easter controversy played one part in this struggle. There was a period of about thirty-five to forty years when Kildare had abandoned the Celtic-84, but Armagh had not. In the 670s, Kildare may have decided to use its orthodox status as one justification for its claim to be archbishopric over all Ireland.77 Armagh may have been able to claim primacy of honor due to its association with St. Patrick. However, considering the fact that the Irish Church was so divided over


109

Easter that the ecclesiastical leadership had to meet in separate synods, it is difficult to see how it could claim authority over those it saw as heretical. Specific canons in the Hibernensis state that no dispute should be referred to the heretical British. When this canon was included only the British still used the Celtic-84, but it can be assumed that before the 680s, the Roman party would have applied this to Armagh as well.78 Therefore the adoption of the Dionysian table may have been part of a larger program by Armagh to counter the claims of Kildare not only on the grounds that it was the see established by Patrick but also that it followed orthodox practices. Evidence points to the fact that by the late 680s Armagh was both claiming archiepiscopal status and trying to associate more closely with Rome. The Book of the Angel (c.685) states that disputes should be forwarded “to the see of the archbishop of the Irish, that is, (the see) of Patrick.”79 Only if a decision could not be rendered at Armagh was the matter to be directed to the papacy. Patrician documents also use the presence of the relics of Peter, Paul, Stephen, and Lawrence to support its claim to be an archbishopric.80 It has been argued that Armagh could not have obtained these relics if it had not adopted Roman practices.81 The evidence from the Dionysian and Celtic-84 also helps to confirm Armagh’s abandonment of the Celtic-84 in the 680s. First the Celtic-84 and Dionysian tables did not agree from 666 to 681. Then in the 680s, the tables listed the same date in 682, 685, 686, and 689 (table 6.1). However, the tables then listed conflicting dates until 709. Remembering that churches often abandoned the Celtic-84 just before the tables were in agreement in order to ease the adoption of a new table, this would have been a perfect time for Armagh to make the switch. Another issue was the increasing problems with the lunar dates in the Celtic-84. By the 680s, the its dates were four days ahead of the actual moon. By just looking at the moon there is an obvious distinction between luna 14 and luna 10 (figure 1.1). It would be logical to switch tables not only while they were in agreement but also near 690 when the Celtic-84 finished its cycle. In addition, it would have been that much harder to argue for the accuracy of the Celtic-84 when it was so visibly incorrect. The congruent Easter dates in the 680s cannot alone explain Armagh’s abandonment of the Celtic-84, but it does help to narrow down and affirm the suggestion by other historians that this switch most likely occurred in the 680s.

Conclusion Iona is often held up as the norm for the Irish as well as the Celtic Church. Headed by an abbot-priest who had more authority than its bishop and

110


Table 6.1 Comparative Easter dates, 680–89 Year

Celtic-84 Easter

680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689

April 15 April 7 March 30 April 12 April 3 March 26 April 15 March 31 April 19 April 11

Luna 14 17 20 14 16 19 20 16 17 19

Dionysian Luna Easter (Dionysian) 10 12 15 9 12 15 16 12 13 15

March 25 April 14 March 30 April 19 April 10 March 26 April 15 April 7 March 29 April 11

Luna 18 19 15 16 19 15 16 19 21 15

Luna (Celtic-84) 22 24 20 21 23 19 20 23 25 19

Note: Bold⫽tables in agreement. Source: Celtic-84 Easter and luna dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19, modernized and cycled by C. Corning; Dionysian Easter and luna dates calculated using Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion, pp. 821–22; alternative luna dates and all adjustments by C. Corning.

with daughter houses and dependent churches throughout Ireland, Pictland, and Dál Ríata, it supposedly demonstrates the antiepiscopal sentiment of the Celts. Yet, the Irish Church was much more complex than this simple model attests. There were powerful abbots, who unlike their contemporaries on the Continent, controlled large networks of churches and regularly attended church synods. On the other hand, bishops always remained powerful and important. In the late seventh century, there was controversy between the bishops over whether authority should rest at the minor province, major province, or archiepiscopal level, but there was never an expectation that their honor and responsibility to help lead the Church was obsolete. The alternative Celtic practices, particularly the Celtic-84, were issues of controversy. From the late 620s until 716, the Irish Church was divided over Easter. Local and regional synods were called and representatives sent to Rome. By the 640s, the situation had become divisive enough that those who supported the Celtic-84 and those who advocated transferring to the Dionysian table could not meet together. Instead, churchmen of each party gathered in separate synods. It is easy to imagine that this was the only way other issues could be decided. As long as such an important concern as Easter dating remained in dispute, arguments about which table to follow would undermine reaching unity on other problems.


111

Thus, the existence of the Roman and Irish parties did not reflect conflict between groups with two radically different worldviews. Both acknowledged that the Irish Church should have important bishops and abbots, and both recognized the power of the papacy to act as a court of appeals. Churches adopted the Victorian and then Dionysian tables not because they believed Rome was always right or that it had absolute power in the Church, and certainly not because they were attempting to assert the power of the episcopacy, but because they became convinced that the Celtic-84 had major flaws and the Church needed to unify behind the correct Easter table. The temporary split in the Irish Church between the “Roman” and “Irish” proves once again that unity in Easter practice was a critical issue in the early Middle Ages.

Chapter 7 Iona and Northumbria, 634–65

The northern-most Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the seventh century was Northumbria, stretching from the Humber River in the south to the River Tweed in the north, and at times controlling portions of Pictland, Mercia, and Lindsey (map 4.1). Northumbria was divided into two major subkingdoms—Deira in the south with its focus around York and Bernicia in the north centered at Bamburgh. Though occasionally ruled by two different kings, in the seventh century, more often than not, the two were united under a single ruler. In 616, Edwin gained control of Northumbria with the defeat of King Æthelfrith (604–16), whose sons, Eanfrith, Oswald, and Oswiu, then were forced into exile (table 7.1).1 In 633, Cadwallon (d. 634), king of Gwynedd, and Penda (c.626–55), king of Mercia, invaded Northumbria and killed Edwin.2 The kingdom dissolved into its two parts, Edwin’s cousin Osric (633–34) taking the Deiran crown, and Eanfrith (633–34), Æthelfrith’s son, the Bernician. According to Bede, both these men apostatized from Christianity and soon died at the hands of Cadwallon’s conquering forces.3 Such were the circumstances that confronted Oswald (634–42) when he inherited the kingdom of Bernicia in 634.4 Upon becoming king, one of Oswald’s first duties was to stop Cadwallon who continued to ravage Northumbria. Bede included the story in his History that Oswald erected a cross at the battlefield later known as Heavenfield and instructed all of his men to pray to God for forgiveness and victory.5 God granted Oswald’s humble request and Cadwallon was finally defeated.6 The triumphant king was able to reunite Bernicia and Deira and ruled over a unified Northumbria until his death in 642.7

113 Table 7.1 Northumbrian family tree DEIRA

BERNICIA

Uffi

Ida

Ælfric

Ælle

Osric (633–34)

Edwin (616–33)

Oswine (644-51) Eadfrith

Æthelric Acha =

Eanflæd

Æthelfrith (592–616)

Oswald Oswiu (634–42) (642–670)

Eanfrith (633–34)

Talorgan (653–57)

Œthelwald (651–55)

King of Picts

Sub-king Deira

Oswiu* (642–70) 1. m. Irish Princess 2 . RHIAINFELLT OF RHEGED 3. Eanflæd, daughter Edwin

Alhfrith (655–65)

Ecgfrith (670–85)

Sub-king Deira

Aldfrith (685–705)

Ælfwine (d. 679) Sub-king Deira

Osred (705–16)

Osric (718–29)

Cuthwine**

Cœnred (716–18) Note: * Same as above. ** Claimed descent from Ida.

Ceolwulf (729–37)

114


As a Christian, Oswald wanted to continue the mission to convert Northumbria, begun under King Edwin and Paulinus—a member of the mission sent by Gregory.8 As Oswald had spent time exiled in Dál Ríata, a kingdom tied to the monastery of Iona, it is not surprising that the king turned to this monastery rather than the papacy for assistance. As requested, Iona sent a member of their community named Aidan (634–51) to be bishop of Northumbria, along with a number of monks to reside in a new monastery at Lindisfarne. For thirty years, from 634 until 664, the bishops of Northumbria were from Iona and all indications point to a close relationship between mother and daughter house. However, in 664, Oswiu, king of Northumbria called a synod at Whitby to determine whether his kingdom would continue to use the Celtic table and tonsure advocated by Iona or would switch to the Dionysian table and Roman tonsure.9 Persuaded by the arguments of the Roman party, Oswiu ruled that the older Celtic traditions were to be abandoned. Bishop Colmán (661–64) of Northumbria, and others who were unwilling to abide by this decision, returned first to Iona and then to Ireland proper.10

Bede’s History and Stephanus’ Life of Wilfrid For the period between 634 and 670 there are two major primary sources that provide details on the relationship between Iona, Lindisfarne, and the Northumbrian Church: Bede’s History and Stephanus’ Life of Wilfrid. It is important to understand the major objectives and underlying biases of each of these works in order to analyze correctly the connections between the Celtic and Roman traditions from the reign of Oswald until the immediate aftermath of the Synod of Whitby.

Bede’s Presentation of Iona in the History It is necessary to take into account Bede’s hopes for the Church in the 730s in order to understand his presentation of Iona. In 734, Bede wrote a letter to Egbert (732–66), bishop of York in which he listed what he saw as the major problems with the Church.11 These included a general lack of pastoral care, greedy bishops who focused on their own power, and lax and corrupt monastic communities. At the end of the letter, he reminds Egbert that as bishop he needs to monitor the monasteries, provide enough teachers, ensure that all receive the Eucharist frequently, and reform a Church too focused on riches.12

Iona and Northumbria, 634–65

115

The themes of reform and the need for the Church to dedicate itself to pastoral care are found throughout Bede’s works. It has been argued that Bede ultimately viewed his responsibilities as a priest and as a teacher of priests as his most important calling.13 Whether he was composing hagiography, computistical works, biblical commentaries, or history, his goal was always to encourage the Church to better follow Christ and the model established by the apostles.14 In writing the history of the spread of Christianity in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, Bede included a significant amount of information on Iona since it was involved in the conversion of Northumbria as well as events in Pictland and Dál Ríata. Bede much admired many of those sent from Iona to Northumbria and saw them as humble, devoted shepherds whose focus was on the needs of their people rather than their own power and aggrandizement.15 He wanted to use these bishops and monks as models with which to chastise the churchmen of his own day. However, he faced the problem that those from Iona used the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure, something he could not condone. In light of this, Bede’s portrayal of Iona is in many ways one of his most complex models. From his viewpoint in the early 730s, he knew that Iona abandoned the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure in 716.16 However, this monastery continued to follow the alternative practices for over seventy years after the letter from Pope John (640) condemning them.17 Therefore, those from Iona were not as disobedient and arrogant as the members of the British Church who continued in 731 to use the Celtic-84, but not to be as highly regarded as those who switched to the Dionysian table in the 640s or 660s. Bede faced two additional issues when it came to his depiction of those from Iona. First, Iona was crucial to the conversion of Northumbria and to have totally condemned this tradition would have implied that the Northumbrian Church had a heretical or at least schismatic foundation. Bede was grateful to those who had brought Christianity to Northumbria and he wanted to establish a generally orthodox history for the Church.18 Bede’s second concern was how his portrayal of Iona would influence his presentation of Lindisfarne. Bede greatly admired Cuthbert (685–87) bishop of Lindisfarne and presented him as an episcopal model par excellence. Cuthbert had first entered a monastery associated with Lindisfarne in the period before the Synod of Whitby. This means that he had followed the alternative Celtic practices during this period. After Whitby, he switched to the Dionysian table and thus was fully orthodox when he became bishop. Therefore, Bede had to be careful not to condemn those, like Cuthbert, who had used the Celtic table but then abandoned it. To have done so would have undermined Cuthbert’s sanctity.

116


The Synod of Whitby narrative is the turning point in Bede’s presentation of Iona, much like the meeting with Augustine transforms his portrayal of the British. Before this narrative, he praises those from Iona, but almost always with the reminder that they used schismatic practices. For instance, when recording the arrival of Aidan as bishop of Northumbria in 634, Bede states that he was “a man of outstanding gentleness, devotion and moderation, who had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge . . .” before adding that Aidan, like most of the northern Irish, was “accustomed to celebrate Easter Sunday between the fourteenth and twentieth day of the moon.”19 The phrase “who had zeal for God but not according to knowledge” is from the New Testament book of Romans where the Apostle Paul writes that he hoped the Israelites would find the truth of God in Christ.20 Bede’s audience would have caught the allusion: some of the Irish, like the Israelites, tried to serve God, but failed due to their ignorance and unwillingness to submit fully to God’s will. The opportunity for forgiveness and grace still existed, but they needed to admit their error. Rather than outright condemnation, Bede often adds that those from Iona did not know their Easter table was incorrect.21 For instance, he mentions that Columba, Iona’s founder, and others used the Celtic-84 “since they were so far away at the ends of the earth that there was none to bring them the synodical decrees of the synods concerning the observance of Easter.”22 This excuse is not very accurate after 630, but Bede continued to support this possibility until the condemnation of the Celtic-84 at the Synod of Whitby. Even after the Whitby narrative, though Bede no longer excuses Iona for heretical practices, he never portrays it as negatively as he does the British. Churchmen from this monastery had helped in the conversion of Northumbria, while he believed the British had not. He also knew that they adopted the Dionysian table, unlike the British who in 730 still used the Celtic-84. However, from his viewpoint, Iona should have abandoned the Celtic-84 much earlier.

The Quartodeciman Heretics: Stephanus’ Life of Wilfrid Not much is known about Stephanus.23 He identifies himself as “Stephen the priest” in the introduction of the Life and states that it was at the request of Bishop Acca (709–31) of Hexham and Abbot Tatberht of Ripon that he undertook the task of recording the events of Wilfrid’s life. Wilfrid’s reign as bishop of Northumbria was extremely controversial. He was expelled from his see and condemned at synods and by kings and archbishops. There was no possibility that Stephanus could gloss over these events. As with the Life


117

of Columbanus, the Life of Wilfrid needed to justify conflict and defend the saint as a dedicated servant of God. Stephanus and Wilfrid’s supporters clearly felt the need to present an “official” version of events. Throughout the Life, Wilfrid is always exonerated for all the conflicts that occurred during his forty-five year episcopate.

Short overview of the major events in Wilfrid’s life until 664, according to Stephanus Wilfrid was born in the early 630s in Northumbria. At fourteen, he became frustrated with his step-mother, and left home traveling to the Northumbrian court where he was presented to Queen Eanflæd.24 When she discovered that Wilfrid wanted to enter the religious life, she arranged for him to serve Cudda, a nobleman joining the monastery at Lindisfarne. However, within a few years, Wilfrid decided to travel to Rome. Arriving in Canterbury c.653, he learned the Roman version of the Psalter and met Benedict Biscop, who would become abbot of Wearmouth and founder of Jarrow. The two traveled as far as Lyons together.25 Wilfrid then befriended Bishop Aunemundus of Lyons before continuing his journey to Rome.26 While there, Wilfrid adopted the Dionysian table and received a papal blessing before returning to Lyons where he stayed with the bishop for three years and received a Roman tonsure.27 When Wilfrid finally returned to Northumbria in c.658, he became friends with Alhfrith (655–64), one of King Oswiu’s sons and sub-king of Deira. Stephanus states that the two became “like David and Jonathan.” Alhfrith gave Wilfrid the monastery at Ripon and appointed him abbot. Soon after, Wilfrid was ordained a priest by Agilbert, bishop of the West Saxons, a Frank who was tied to the Columbanian tradition and who would eventually become bishop of Paris. In 664, Oswiu called a church council at Whitby to decide whether the Northumbrian Church would follow the Celtic or Roman traditions and it was Wilfrid who presented the case for the Roman side. When Colmán, Bishop of Northumbria, chose to return to Iona rather than abandon the Celtic practices, Wilfrid became bishop in his place and traveled to the Continent to be ordained by twelve orthodox bishops.28

Date of the Composition of the Life of Wilfrid It is impossible to determine exactly what Acca and Tatberht hoped to accomplish with the Life of Wilfrid. Examining the political climate of the period between 710 and 720, however, does provide some logical possibilities. From the time of Wilfrid’s death in 709/10 to 716 it is probable that

118


the Wilfridian circle had the patronage of both the Northumbrian and Mercian kings. Wilfrid had helped Osred (705–16) gain the throne in Northumbria and was known as his foster-father.29 Ceolred, king of Mercia (709–16), is mentioned near the end of the Life as a supporter of Wilfrid.30 Therefore, the Life might have been written while Osred and Ceolred were in power to reinforce the ties between Wilfrid’s supporters and these kings after Wilfrid’s death.31 The Life also could have been composed after 716. In this year, the political situation in both Mercia and Northumbria changed. Æthelbald (716–57) succeeded to the throne in Mercia. The fact that the new king had been in exile during Ceolred’s reign demonstrates that he probably belonged to a different collateral branch of the royal family.32 Due to the close ties between the previous four Mercian kings and Wilfrid, it would be understandable if Æthelbald chose not to be as supportive. Thus, the Wilfridian communities were in a precarious position. In Northumbria, power also transferred to a collateral branch in 716 when Osred was murdered and Cœnred came to power.33 Again taking into account the close ties between Wilfrid and Osred, the Wilfridian group may have faced negative political repercussions during Cœnred’s short reign. The political climate in Northumbria, however, soon became more favorable when Osric (718–29), Osred’s brother, became king. It is during this period, soon after Osric came to power, that Acca and Tatberht may have felt the need to propagate Wilfridian interests by commissioning the Life. These men may have wanted to remind the new king of the close ties that had existed between Wilfrid and his brother. This information might not have helped their cause while Cœnred was in power. Therefore, it is possible that the Life was written in c.718 in response to the changing political climate in Northumbria.

Celtic Material in the Life Stephanus presents Wilfrid as the upholder of Roman practices and orthodoxy against the Quartodeciman heretics, in other words the supporters of the Celtic-84.34 In the past, some historians have pointed to Stephanus’ charge of Quartodecimanism as a sign that he was confused regarding the Celtic table. However, Stephanus includes the information that the Irish celebrated on luna 14 only if this were a Sunday.35 Consequently, he had to have known that the Irish were not Quartodecimans in the true meaning of the term. On the other hand, the papacy had linked use of luna 14–20 with Quartodecimanism in two letters, one from Pope Honorius in c.628 and another from Pope-elect John in 640.36 Therefore, it appears that this link was clearly established long before Stephanus wrote the Life.


119

Unlike Bede, Stephanus condemns both the Irish and the British in the Life.37 This may be due to the fact that the Life was composed around the time or only a few years after Iona finally abandoned the Celtic-84 and thus this monastery still would have been closely associated with a heretical table. Although Stephanus admits that Wilfrid’s early training was at Lindisfarne, he specifically points out that Wilfrid left before he received a Celtic tonsure and that, in fact, he wanted a Roman one.38 In addition, the Life credits Wilfrid with bringing the correct method of Easter calculation, the Benedictine Rule and the Roman liturgy to England. In light of this, it would have made no sense to excuse or explain Iona’s use of the Celtic practices because this in turn would have minimized Wilfrid’s accomplishments in introducing Roman traditions and defeating his Quartodeciman opponents.

Summary Bede was very anxious about the Northumbrian Church of his day. He perceived a distinct lack of pastoral concern, simplicity and discipline among the leaders of the Church. Many of his writings addressed the issue of reform and the History is no exception.39 By providing models of good, humble, caring abbots and bishops, Bede was able to offer examples for his readers to emulate. This goal of creating useful models to imitate or reject needs to be kept in mind when using this text. When it came to Iona, Bede faced the problem that men from this monastery had provided the early Northumbrian Church with excellent ecclesiastical leadership, but they had used the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure. For bishops like Aidan, who lived before the Synod of Whitby in 664, Bede provided an excuse that they were unaware of the schismatic nature of the Celtic-84. These were flawed saints who had tried to serve God to the best of their abilities but had ultimately fallen into error. In the History, Bede clarifies that those who used the Celtic-84 were not Quartodecimans. Those from Iona may have been ignorant or unwillingly schismatic, but they were not heretics. After 664, when the monastery at Lindisfarne was divided between those willing to accept the Dionysian table and those who returned to Ireland rather than abandon the Celtic-84, the close relationship between Iona and Lindisfarne was severed. It is post–664 Lindisfarne and not Iona that contained the men Bede would highlight as his fully orthodox models of ecclesiastical leadership in the latter part of his History. Stephanus’ portrayal of the Irish and the British is much less complex than Bede’s. The disparaging descriptions that accompany Stephanus’ comments regarding the “Quartodeciman party” are used to reinforce the

120


negative portrayal of the Celtic tradition in contrast to Wilfrid’s innocence. Wilfrid was the Roman champion who restored the Anglo-Saxon Church to orthodoxy. For Stephanus, it was exactly the heretical nature of the Irish and British that highlighted and magnified Wilfrid’s sacrifice and dedication in bringing the Church back into the Catholic fold. Both Bede’s complex model of flawed saints and Stephanus’ emphasis on the Quartodeciman heretics need to be kept in mind when using the History and the Life of Wilfrid to reconstruct the events surrounding the Synod of Whitby.

Before the Synod of Whitby When Oswald was killed in 642 by the Mercian King Penda, Northumbria dissolved back into two separate kingdoms.40 Oswiu (642–70), Oswald’s brother, became king of Bernicia, while Oswine, a member of Edwin’s family, became king of Deira (table 7.1). Oswiu first reunited the two halves of the kingdom by killing Oswine in 651 and then spent the rest of his reign attempting to expand his authority to neighboring kingdoms. Oswiu’s support of the conversion of some of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms was a key feature of this policy to acquire additional power and influence.41 In 651, Fínán (651–61) became bishop of Northumbria. He, like Aidan, had once been a monk at Iona before transferring to Lindisfarne. It is Fínán who oversaw the conversion of the Middle Angles (map 4.1). One of the men he appointed to participate in this mission, Diuma (c.655–58), eventually became bishop of Mercia and the Middle Angles.42 Priests were sent by Oswiu to convert the East Saxons and Fínán baptized their king, Sigeberht (c.653). Cedd (d. 664), a disciple of Aidan, was bishop of the East Saxons and baptized Swithhelm (653–64), Sigeberht’s successor.43 While Oswiu’s control and influence in these territories waxed and waned, many of the bishops and priests in Mercia, Essex, and, of course, Northumbria were from Lindisfarne or houses under her influence.44 It can be assumed that before 664, these men would have been using the alternative Celtic practices. As these began to be used outside of Northumbria, it likely led to increasing controversy over Easter dating. In his History, Bede states that the Easter controversy had been brewing since the time of Fínán.45 While he was bishop, Rónán, who was probably from a Columbanian community on the Continent, tried to convince him to adopt the Roman table.46 Rónán was unsuccessful, though Bede implies that he might have had some victories with others. In addition, Bede adds the information that at the Northumbrian court, Easter was sometimes


121

celebrated twice in the same year. This was due to the fact that Oswiu followed the Celtic dating while his wife, who was Edwin’s daughter, used the Roman table.47 Oswiu and his wife were married in c.644, but it was not until the early 660s that the Easter controversy reached a crisis. This indicates that there was more to the Synod of Whitby than simply a dispute over the correct Easter table. Also, although Whitby took place in Northumbria, the fact that many tied to Lindisfarne were in power throughout the AngloSaxon Church means that the decision of this council had wide-ranging effects.

Synod of Whitby (664) Politics As mentioned above, in c.653, Wilfrid left Lindisfarne to travel to Rome, stopping first at Canterbury and Lyons. While he was away, he adopted the Dionysian Easter table and Roman tonsure, convinced that these practices—rather than those he learned at Lindisfarne—were correct. In c.658, he returned to Northumbria and befriended Oswiu’s son Alhfrith (655–c.665), who had recently been appointed sub-king of Deira. Under Wilfrid’s influence, Alhfrith also decided that the Celtic Easter was heretical.48 This soon led to controversy. In c.658, apparently before meeting Wilfrid, Alhfrith had given land to monks from Melrose, a monastery associated with Lindisfarne, to establish a community at Ripon.49 When Alhfrith demanded that these monks abandon the Celtic table and tonsure, they refused. In response, he removed them from the monastery and gave the community to Wilfrid, who became the new abbot.50 Wilfrid quickly instituted Roman practices. Soon after this, Alhfrith arranged for Wilfrid to be ordained a priest by Agilbert (c.650–60), bishop of the West Saxons.51 The connections between Wilfrid, Alhfrith, and Agilbert are important in the political maneuvering before the Synod of Whitby. Throughout much of Oswiu’s reign, Deira was a sore point. It was first controlled by Oswine whom the king had killed and then ruled by Oswiu’s nephew Œthelwald. He rebelled against his uncle, allied with Penda of Mercia and fought against Oswiu at the battle of Winwæd (655/56) where he was killed.52 It was after this that Alhfrith became sub-king. While Alhfrith fought on his father’s side at Winwæd, he later rebelled and disappeared from the historical record after 664.53

122


It is possible that after 658, Alhfrith was trying to gain the upper hand against his father. Stephanus states that Alhfrith was a good friend of Cenwealh (643–72), the West Saxon king, and in fact it was due to Cenwealh’s recommendation that Alhfrith invited Wilfrid to Deira.54 Oswald of Northumbria, Alhfrith’s uncle, had married Cenwealh’s sister but there is no evidence of a close relationship between Alhfrith’s father, Oswiu and Cenwealh. It is possible that Alhfrith’s friendship with the West Saxon king may have been part of his plan to gain political allies against his father.55 It is interesting then that Alhfrith arranged for Agilbert, bishop of the West Saxons, to ordain Wilfrid as priest. It is possible that Bishop Colmán of Northumbria was unwilling to ordain Wilfrid, since Wilfrid and Alhfrith had just expelled the monks at Ripon for refusing to adopt Roman practices. It is also probable that Wilfrid would have refused to have Colmán participate in this ceremony, as he would have seen the bishop as following heretical practices. In fact, at Whitby, it would be Colmán and Wilfrid who would represent the opposing traditions. Agilbert, on the other hand, was from Gaul. His sister was abbess of Jouarre, a Columbanian foundation. Some of his cousins, notably Audoin, bishop of Rouen, also were associated with the Columbanian tradition.56 Therefore, he was firmly in the Roman camp. King Oswiu, on the other hand, followed the Celtic practices. He had been baptized in Ireland and during his reign, Aidan, Fínán, and Colmán, all men from Iona, were respectively bishops of Northumbria. Alhfrith’s support of the Roman practices as the correct and orthodox tradition, therefore, had political implications. His actions would have been a challenge to his father; at the very least calling into question the orthodoxy of the king.57 In light of this, Stephanus’ accusations of heresy against those who used the Celtic-84 in the Life of Wilfrid may well reflect Wilfrid’s propaganda before the Synod of Whitby. Alhfrith may have been using the claim that he held to correct practices as part of a plan to strengthen his own power and influence.58 It is also possible that Alhfrith felt he had something to gain by aligning with the Roman portion of the Northumbrian court.59

Heavenly Signs In early May 664, the Irish annals record a solar eclipse.60 Bede also mentions this in his History. Analysis of the eclipse has shown that York, an old center of Roman practices, would have only seen a partial eclipse; in the north where more people adhered to the Celtic-84, the darkness would have been total and for a greater length of time.61 It is easy to see how some connection may have been drawn between this event and the controversy over Easter dating. In addition, in the summer of 664, Anglo-Saxon England


123

was struck by plague. The sources do not record the specific months that this occurred, though they do record some of the deaths in July and in October.62 Assuming that the plague struck soon after the eclipse, it is certainly understandable that questions may have arisen with regard to these signs. While it is unlikely that the eclipse in and of itself would have triggered the Synod of Whitby had the Easter controversy not already been brewing, with the increasing tension between the supporters of the Celtic-84 and Dionysian tables, combined with some political maneuvering on the part of Alhfrith, these heavenly signs could have contributed to the urgency of needing to determine the correct Easter table.

Theological and Practical Issues According to Bede, the Easter controversy in Northumbria arose while Fínán (651–61) was bishop. As mentioned, an Irishman named Rónán tried unsuccessfully to convince the bishop to abandon the Celtic table. The situation appears to have escalated after this because by the time Colmán became bishop of Northumbria in 661, Bede states that many Christians were afraid they would loose their salvation by celebrating the wrong Easter.63 This is in line with Wilfrid’s accusations of heresy for those who did not follow the correct table and also with the arguments from both sides of the controversy in Ireland. In addition to the theological seriousness of the Easter controversy, the tables were listing divergent dates more often. Though they agreed in 662 and 665, after this they did not list identical dates again until 682. For a court that followed both tables, this would help to explain why the controversy was becoming more serious. The different Easter tables also were advocating controversial dates (table 7.2). Notice that the tables are three weeks apart in 661 and 666. According to the Victorian and Dionysian tables, the Celtic-84 listed Easter on luna 14 or before in 661, 663, 664, and 666. During, these same years, the Roman tables listed dark Easters, according to the Celtic-84. To make things even more confusing, if any were still using the Victorian table it had two Easter dates in 665. Therefore, for both the Celtic and Roman party, their opponents were celebrating Easter on heretical dates. It has been mentioned that decisions regarding the correct Easter table were often made the year before the tables were in agreement. This allowed more time for new tables to be copied and all to be notified of the upcoming change. It is interesting, therefore, that Whitby was held in 664 since the tables would agree in 665 and not again until 682. Therefore, Whitby

124

The Celtic and Roman Traditions Table 7.2 Comparative Easter dates, 661–66 Year

Celtic-84 Easter

Victorian Easter

Dionysian Easter

661 662 663 664 665 666

April 18 April 10 March 26 April 14 April 6 April 19

March 28 April 10 April 2 April 21 April 6 or 13 March 29

March 28 April 10 April 2 April 21 April 6 March 29

Note: Bold⫽tables in agreement. Source: Celtic-84 Easter dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19, modernized and cycled by C. Corning; Victorian and Dionysian Easter dates calculated using Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion, pp. 821–22 with modifications to the Victorian table as indicated by Jones, “The Victorian and Dionysiac,” p. 411.

fits the pattern of a synod being held the year before the tables would agree in order to ease the change to a new tradition.

Arguments at the Synod—Bede Bede’s History and Stephanus’ Life of Wilfrid have different versions of the Synod of Whitby.64 According to Bede, at Whitby, Bishop Colmán and his clergy, Hild (657–80) abbess of Whitby, and Cedd (d. 664), bishop of the East Saxons supported the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure. Alhfrith, Wilfrid, the priest Agatho, Agilbert (former) bishop of the West Saxons, James the deacon, and the Queen’s confessor Romanus were present to support the switch to the Roman table and tonsure. Oswiu opened the meeting by stating that the Church should be united and that the correct tradition should be followed. Bishop Colmán, the advocate for the Celtic-84, claimed three main sources of authority for this table: the Apostle John, Anatolius, and Columba and the other holy men of Iona. He argued that Anatolius clearly advocated celebrating Easter between luna 14 and 20. In addition since Columba was definitely a saint, he would never have supported a table that violated the precepts laid out in the Scriptures. The holiness and authority of John, Anatolius, and Columba clearly demonstrated that the Celtic-84


125

was the correct table. According to Bede’s version of the synod, Colmán provided no specifics on any problems with the Dionysian table. Oswiu then called on Agilbert to present the arguments for the Roman side, but the bishop deferred to Wilfrid who was fluent in English and thus could better communicate with those present. Wilfrid argued that it was the Dionysian table that was kept in Italy, Gaul, and throughout the rest of the Church. The only ones who did not were some of the Irish, Picts, and Britons who lived on “the two remotest islands of the Ocean.”65 Not only did all of the modern Church support the Dionysian table, but it was important to put John’s decision to celebrate Easter on Passover into context. When the Apostle established churches, he did so in populations that were primarily Jewish and therefore incorporated those parts of the Law that were needed to help the Jews convert. Even Paul followed some precepts so as to honor the Jewish heritage of many early Christians. However, since the Church was now dominated by the Gentiles, it was unlawful to follow these traditions. According to Bede, Wilfrid pointed out that all of the Churches in the East that were originally founded by John now celebrated using luna 15–21. Also, the supporters of the Celtic table did not truly imitate John since he celebrated on luna 14 no matter the day of the week. The Celtic-84 only used luna 14 if it was a Sunday. More damning was the fact that Colmán and his supporters misunderstood how dates were listed in the East. In the West, if Easter fell on luna 14, the celebration actually began the Saturday evening before on luna 13 and continued into the morning of luna 14. However, Wilfrid argued, when John said Easter fell on luna 14, he was referring to when the evening celebration began. Therefore, he celebrated Easter on the evening of luna 14 and continued it into luna 15. Wilfrid pointed out that Jesus held Passover on the evening of luna 14 and was crucified during the day of luna 15. John, therefore, never celebrated during the day of luna 14, but used a luna 15 date according to the Western understanding of luna dates. So both John and Peter, Prince of the Apostles, used a luna 15 dating, but Peter established the Sunday dating for Easter and a luna range of 15–21. This calculation was then deemed correct by the Council of Nicaea. Therefore, Colmán followed the traditions of neither John nor Peter, violated Old and New Testament Scriptures and disregarded the rulings of an ecumenical council by celebrating Easter during the day of luna 14 and ignoring luna 21. As for Anatolius, Wilfrid correctly pointed out that this scholar never supported an 84-year table, but rather a nineteen-year one. In addition, Wilfrid added, when Anatolius listed luna 14–20, he meant luna 15–21, since he would have reckoned the days from sundown rather than sunrise. Therefore, a luna 14 date meant that the Easter celebration should begin

126


that evening and continue onto the next day or luna 15. Therefore, the Celtic-84 did not imitate the rules suggested by Anatolius. Again, the basic issue was that the supporters of the Celtic-84 misunderstood what a “day” meant in the documents they were using for support.66 As for Columba, Wilfrid first argues that the Scriptures state Jesus will not know many who claimed to prophesy in His name.67 He adds however that he does not think this is the case with Columba. Instead Columba and others “in their rude simplicity” did their best to serve God and the Church and were not aware that they were in error. He asserts that Columba would have abandoned the Celtic-84 had he known it was incorrect. It was different for Colmán and his supporters, however, for “once having heard the decrees of the apostolic see or rather of the universal Church, if you refuse to follow them, confirmed as they are by the Holy Scriptures, then without doubt you are committing sin.”68 Those who used the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure were a small minority on the edge of nowhere. In the end the decision rested on the issue of whom God had given supreme authority— Columba or Peter? Bede’s story of the synod finishes with King Oswiu asking the above question. All agreed that it was Peter. Oswiu responded that he did not want to offend the man who held the keys to the gates of heaven and thus the Northumbrian Church would use the Dionysian table. Colmán refused to accept this decision and he and his followers left Lindisfarne and returned to Iona rather than abandon the Celtic-84.69

Arguments at the Synod—Stephanus Stephanus did not include as much detail when it came to the arguments presented at the Synod. Unlike Bede, who used the narrative about Whitby to help his reader understand the problems with the Celtic-84, in the Life of Wilfrid, Whitby is a chance for Stephanus to display his hero’s eloquence and prove that Wilfrid was well respected by all in the Northumbria Church. Stephanus says that the British and Irish celebrate between luna 14 and 22.70 This could not be true since no known table used these luna dates. However, it is possible that he is condemning both the Celtic-84 (luna 14–20) and the Victorian (luna 16–22) with this statement and assuming that his readers are not too interested in the specifics of Easter calculations. In this version of the Synod of Whitby, Colmán argued that Columba had supported luna 14, resting on the authority of the Apostle John. “Out of respect to our fathers” he was not willing to use the Dionysian table. Wilfrid countered that the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea had ruled that


127

Easter should be calculated on a nineteen-year table and that it could never fall on luna 14. In addition, the Dionysian table was used by Rome and most of the Church. In Stephanus’ narrative, as in Bede’s, King Oswiu inquires regarding the authority of St. Peter. Hearing that Christ said he would found his Church upon Peter, the king decided in favor of the Dionysian table.71

Summary The Synod of Whitby occurred in 664 due to a number of factors. First, the issue of finding the correct table and using “Roman” traditions may have become a part of the political maneuvering between Oswiu and his son Alhfrith in the period after 658. In addition, a solar eclipse, coupled with an outbreak of plague, may have convinced some that God’s judgment was upon them. Added to these was the growing problem in the Northumbrian court of a king and queen who rarely celebrated Easter and fourteen weeks of feasts and fasts at the same time. As Oswiu was attempting to hold together the two halves of Northumbria and expand his authority into other kingdoms as well, it could not have helped to have the Church divided over such an important issue. As the Celtic-84 and Dionysian tables diverged more often and listed heretical dates, things came to a head. As has been seen in Ireland and in Merovingian Gaul, councils that were called to reach a decision on the correct Easter table tended to meet the year before the tables agreed, easing the transfer to the new table. In 665, both the Dionysian and Celtic-84 tables were in agreement and would not be so again until 682. This coupled with the fact that the tables would diverge by almost a month in 666 would have only escalated the controversy. Though Bede’s and Stephanus’ portrayals of the Synod itself differ in depth of detail, both report that Colmán relied on the authority of John and Columba. This is a slightly different list than was used in the disputes in Merovingian Gaul and in Ireland, which tended to use Anatolius, but focus on the fact that Jerome endorsed the bishop’s skill in computistics in addition to more scriptural arguments. According to Bede, by Whitby both sides were claiming apostolic authority; John for the Celtic-84 and Peter for the Dionysian. Stephanus presents this differently. Wilfrid calls on the authority of Nicaea and Rome, making no arguments regarding Peter or John’s Easter dating. This can be explained by the fact that Stephanus, the papacy, and others linked the Celtic-84 to the Quartodeciman heresy. In the Life of Wilfrid, Stephanus presents Wilfrid as silent regarding the issue of John’s authority,

128


thus not undermining the Quartodeciman accusation. Bede includes the information that the supporters of the Celtic-84 were not following John’s teaching because they confused the definition of a “day” and always celebrated Easter on a Sunday. In this way, Bede undermines any apostolic argument for the Celtic-84 and clarifies that the followers of this table were not Quartodecimans.

Conclusion With its connections to both Gaul and Ireland, it is not surprising that Northumbria became involved in the Easter controversy that was raging in these areas. As with the Continent and Ireland, Easter was an issue that rested both on the need to support correct practices and on the Church’s desire for unity. Disputes over Easter dating and the tonsure led to division within the body of Christ. In addition, as the Church was trying to convert the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, infighting would only distract it from its mission. The Church’s inability to reach an agreement on such an important issue could not have helped its legitimacy in the eyes of its pagan audience. In the History, Bede faced the problem that Iona had founded Lindisfarne and was instrumental in the conversion of Northumbria. Wanting neither to call into question the foundation of the Church in his kingdom nor to condone the Celtic-84, he confronted the challenge of establishing Aidan and his compatriots as humble servants of God, while reminding the reader that they were in error with regard to Easter and the tonsure. He wanted the readers of the History to understand that those from Iona should be commended, but until 716, they were mistaken flawed followers of Christ. As will be discussed in more detail in chapter 8, Bede also did not want to undermine the reputation of those who after the Synod of Whitby adopted Roman practices and stayed at Lindisfarne. In his discussion of the post–Whitby period in the History, many of these people would become key figures and outstanding models to imitate. For Stephanus, the Easter controversy was less an issue of the need for Church unity than one which helped to frame and reinforce the important work of Wilfrid within the Anglo-Saxon Church. According to Stephanus, it was Wilfrid, and Wilfrid alone, who introduced the Benedictine Rule and Roman customs to Northumbria and it was the saint’s skill as an orator that won the day at Whitby. This is not to argue that Easter was a nonissue to Wilfrid. He seems to have been very convinced of the need for the Northumbrian Church to be in communion with Rome and as a bishop and missionary he would have been aware of the problems that the Easter


129

controversy was causing within the Church. However, due to Stephanus’ goals for the Life, it was Wilfrid as Roman champion that became the key issue rather than the specific arguments regarding Easter dating. It should also be noted that Wilfrid demonstrates the spreading influence of the Columbanian communities. Many of the Frankish churchmen with whom he interacted were associated with this tradition. While the Benedictine Rule does not seem to have been popular in Rome in the midseventh century, it certainly was in the Columbanian circle. Therefore, it can be assumed that it was through contact with communities using a mixed rule of Benedictine and Columbanian influence that Wilfrid became familiar with this Rule and introduced it to Anglo-Saxon England. The Synod of Whitby was an important event in the Easter controversy of this period. Due to Northumbrian dominance in the late 650s, many churchmen outside of Northumbria were associated with Lindisfarne and most likely continued to use the Celtic table until this council. It needs to be assumed that Oswiu’s condemnation of Celtic practices led to their abandonment in these other kingdoms as well. In addition, Whitby seriously diminished Iona’s power within the Northumbrian Church. Between 634 and 664, all the bishops of Northumbria were from Iona and it appears that the monastery remained in close contact with Lindisfarne and her daughter houses. After Whitby, Colmán and those who could not accept Roman practices returned to Iona and then to Ireland proper. Given the fact that divergent Easter dates were a heresy issue, it is difficult to see how Iona could have remained closely involved in the Northumbrian Church in the years immediately following 664. The Synod of Whitby was not the end of the controversy concerning the alternative Celtic practices. In 664, Pictland, Dál Ríata, Iona, and the British kingdoms all continued to use the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure. It was still over a hundred years before the switch to the Dionysian table was complete. As well, political concerns in Northumbria between Wilfrid and Lindisfarne continued throughout the seventh century. In these political controversies, Lindisfarne’s Ionan heritage would continue to be an issue even after it had fully adopted Roman practices.

Chapter 8 Northumbria and Anglo-Saxon England, 665–735

By 700, two internal parties influenced the Church in Northumbria. The first was comprised of Wilfrid and his followers and the second centered at Lindisfarne and focused on its promotion of the cult of St. Cuthbert. The competition between these two groups would fuel the creation of a number of Lives by 731: the anonymous Life of St. Cuthbert (699–704), a metrical Life of St. Cuthbert by Bede (704–16), the Life of Wilfrid by Stephanus (716–20), Bede’s prose Life of St. Cuthbert (before 721), and the chapters concerning Wilfrid and Cuthbert in Bede’s History.1 While Wilfrid was bishop for almost forty-five years, Cuthbert ruled for just two from 685–87. It is clear however, that Lindisfarne pinned its hopes as a major cult center and as an important bishopric on the reputation of Cuthbert. The controversy over the alternative Celtic practices had been solved for the Northumbrian Church at the Synod of Whitby in 664, but the fact that Wilfrid’s reputation was based in part on his claim as the upholder of Roman orthodoxy created problems with the promotion of Cuthbert since he had been trained in daughter houses under Lindisfarne’s control before Whitby. Although Wilfrid had entered Lindisfarne in c.648, he departed for Rome before receiving a Celtic tonsure and quickly abandoned the Celtic-84 upon learning Roman Easter dating. Cuthbert followed the Celtic practices until ordered to change after Whitby. In the face of possible accusations by the Wilfridians, Lindisfarne needed to deal very carefully with the reputation of its saint.2

Northumbria and Anglo-Saxon England, 665–735

131

Sources Demonstrating the Heretical Nature of the Easter Controversy In order to understand the continuing controversy over the alternative Celtic practices in Northumbria after Whitby, it is critical to examine the attitudes of the wider Anglo-Saxon Church on this issue. From the late 620s, if not before, there were accusations of heresy on both sides of the Easter controversy. Those who followed the Victorian and the Dionysian tables saw a link between the Celtic-84 and the Quartodeciman and possibly Pelagian heresies. For the supporters of the Celtic-84, the Roman tables advocated dark Easters and symbolically supported Pelagian teachings as well. As the controversy continued and as each side became even more frustrated with the other, these attitudes became more entrenched.

Letter from Pope Vitalian (657–72) to Oswiu (642–70), King of Northumbria Soon after the Synod of Whitby, Oswiu sent Wigheard to Rome in order to be consecrated by the pope as bishop of Canterbury.3 All the bishops before him had been consecrated in Anglo-Saxon England or Merovingian Gaul. Oswiu may have wanted the pope to participate in Wigheard’s consecration in order to demonstrate that he was firmly in the Roman camp and to ensure that there were no questions concerning the legitimacy of his choice for bishop. After the arrival of the Anglo-Saxon delegation, Pope Vitalian wrote to Oswiu. In this letter, Vitalian states that “by God’s protecting hand, you [Oswiu] have been converted to the true and apostolic faith.” The pope adds that he is pleased to hear that the king labors for “the conversion of all your subjects to the catholic and apostolic faith . . .” and admonishes the king to follow Roman practices, especially with regard to Easter, at all times.4 Since there were representatives of the Northumbrian court at Rome, Vitalian would have been well aware that Oswiu had accepted Christianity decades before Whitby. Therefore it appears that the letter is congratulating Oswiu on adopting Roman practices, thereby converting to the catholic and apostolic faith.5 If this interpretation is correct, it demonstrates that the papacy continued to link the Celtic-84 with heresy. Thus the king has converted from false teachings to the true faith.

132


Writings from the Circle of Theodore (668–90), Archbishop of Canterbury Theodore was originally from Tarsus in present-day Turkey, and probably studied at both Antioch and Constantinople.6 Sometime in the 660s, he came to Rome and resided there as a monk.7 Pope Vitalian chose him to be archbishop of Canterbury in 668 and he arrived in England in the summer of 669. Theodore immediately set out to reform the Anglo-Saxon Church. He consecrated a number of new bishops to replace those who had died in the recent plague and also created newer, smaller bishoprics in order to better administer the Church. He established a school at Canterbury that became a center of Latin and Greek learning. In 673, Theodore called a church council at Hertford according to the record preserved in Bede’s History.8 This synod had representatives from East Anglia, Kent, the West Saxons, Mercia, and Northumbria and therefore its decisions were applicable to the whole of the Anglo-Saxon Church. The first canon states that “we all keep Easter Day at the same time, namely on the Sunday after the fourteenth day of the moon of the first month.”9 While Bede does not identify a specific Easter table, it can be assumed that the bishops had the Dionysian table in mind. Therefore, the Council of Hertford established the Dionysian table as the only correct one for the whole Anglo-Saxon Church. The Penitential of Theodore also serves as evidence that Easter dating continued to be a controversial issue. In its current arrangement, this document has two parts: the first is a penitential and the second is a series of canonical rulings. While the rulings are not preserved in any document written during Theodore’s lifetime, historians argue that most of them appear to be authentic and, in fact, some are only applicable to the period between Theodore’s arrival in Britain and Iona’s adoption of the Roman Easter in c.716.10 An earlier alternative version of the Theodore’s rulings, the Iudicia Theodori, was known in Ireland by 725.11 In the penitential section, there is a chapter dealing with heretics and those who interact with them. One clause states that “if one flouts the Council of Nicaea and keeps Easter with the Jews on the fourteenth of the moon, he shall be driven out of every church unless he does penance before his death.”12 This statement is followed by injunctions that if someone prays “with such a person” he shall do penance.13 A second clause states that if a person has the relics of a heretic and “he does not know the difference between the Catholic faith and that of the Quartodecimans, and [if he] afterward understands and performs penance, he ought to burn the relics with fire, and he shall do penance for a year. If


133

one knows, however, and is indifferent, when he is moved to penance he shall do penance for ten years.”14 A third advises that if a person has allowed a heretic to celebrate Mass in a Catholic church and “if he does this in condemnation of the Catholic Church and the customs of the Romans, he shall be cast out of the Church as a heretic, unless he is penitent; if he is, he shall do penance for ten years”15 Additional statements list the penances for giving communion to a heretic, persuading others to adopt heresy, celebrating Mass for a dead heretic, reciting the names of heretics in church, and the need to be reordained if the original ceremony was performed by a heretic.16 The second part of the penitential has three canons that are applicable to the Easter controversy. First, if a person has been ordained by those supporting the Celtic Easter or tonsure, he will need to be reconfirmed.17 Second, any church consecrated by someone who supports the alternative Easter and tonsure will need to be reconsecrated.18 Third, those who follow the Celtic Easter and tonsure should not receive the Eucharist and “a person from among the nations, or anyone who doubts his baptism, shall be baptized.”19 This latter statement may tie to an earlier passage in the penitential regarding the need for rebaptism for those baptized by heretics who did not believe in the Trinity.20 The Penitential of Theodore makes it clear that the Easter controversy was a major concern in the Anglo-Saxon Church at this time. The situation had become serious enough that those who belonged to the “Catholic” side were not to associate with those who rejected the correct practices. The tonsure also was becoming more important as it became linked with the Celtic Easter and thus condemned by association. As discussed in chapter 1, some of those supporting the Dionysian table argued that the Celtic tonsure was that of Simon Magus, the first heretic from whom all other heresies descended. For some, it must have seemed appropriate that those who were heretics due to their insistence on following an incorrect Easter table should wear a tonsure that symbolically proclaimed their association with the arch-heretic.

Letter of Aldhelm, Abbot of Malmesbury to Geraint, King of Dumnonia Additional evidence of the continuing controversy comes from the letters of Aldhelm (706–709/10), bishop of Sherborne. He studied under Theodore at Canterbury and became abbot of Malmesbury in 674. He founded monasteries and wrote a number of works including an important letter to Geraint, king of Dumnonia (map 4.1). In the letter, Aldhelm states that he was asked by a council of bishops from throughout Britain to write to Geraint about the need for Church

134


unity. It is possible that he is referring to the Council of Hertford in 673.21 Aldhelm writes that the bishops in Geraint’s kingdom are outside the unity of the Catholic faith. He has heard “a rumor hostile to the faith of the Church” that the bishops refuse to wear the Petrine tonsure.22 He chastises them for wearing the tonsure of Simon Magus and contrasts this with the symbolic witness of the tonsure of Peter and the apostles.23 Aldhelm discusses the fact that Geraint’s bishops use the Celtic-84 table.24 By doing so they violate the rulings of Nicaea that he states decreed a nineteen-year cycle and Easter limits of luna 15–21. Instead, by using their alternative table they are like the Quartodecimans who celebrate on luna 14 with the Jews. He also relates that the bishops of Dyfed refuse to associate with those following Roman customs by neither attending the same services nor eating at the same table.25 This is similar to the information about Bishop Dagán contained in the letter of Bishop Laurence (604/10–19) of Canterbury.26 In addition, Aldhelm alleges that the bishops refuse the kiss of peace and require that all vessels used by the Romans be purified. He then adds that a person who follows the Roman practices is not allowed to join a British community until he completes a forty-day penance. Aldhelm pleads with the bishops to “no longer detest with swollen pride of heart and with scornful breast the doctrine and decrees of blessed Peter, and that you in no wise haughtily spurn the tradition of the Roman Church, employing tyrannous obstinacy, for the sake of the ancient statutes of your predecessors.”27 He warns that those who reject the Roman Easter and Petrine tonsure should not expect to be counted among the community of believers.28 Bede mentions in the History that due to a “book” Aldhelm wrote, many of the British residing in the West Saxon kingdom abandoned their alternative practices.29

Summary After seventy years of controversy over the alternative Celtic practices, each side was becoming more frustrated with the other. Continuing the trend set by the papacy in c.630, the Celtic practices were continually linked with heresy. Those who advocated the Celtic-84 had sinned and needed to do penance for their transgression. For some, even those who used the Dionysian table, but associated with the followers of the Celtic-84 were guilty of interaction with heretics and thus penance was assessed. However, Aldhelm’s letter demonstrates that the exasperation was felt not only on the Roman side. Upholding biblical injunctions and the canons of numerous Church councils, the bishops of Dyfed refused to interact with


135

those they deemed heretics. Just as with the supporters of the Dionysian table, confession and penance were required of those who refused to follow the “correct” Easter table.

Bishop Wilfrid (665–709) In order to fully understand Lindisfarne’s difficulties after the Synod of Whitby and the development of the cult of Cuthbert, it is first necessary to discuss Wilfrid’s career as bishop. As mentioned previously, soon after the Synod of Whitby, Wilfrid became bishop of Northumbria and would serve in one and another capacity until his death in 709. Thus Wilfrid’s claims of authority and his emphasis on Roman practices would haunt Lindisfarne long after 664.

Stephanus, Life of Wilfrid, and the events in Wilfrid’s life after 665 According to Stephanus, after Wilfrid was chosen as bishop of Northumbria, he traveled to the continent to be ordained by orthodox rather than Quartodeciman bishops. While Wilfrid was gone, King Oswiu appointed Chad, a priest trained at a Lindisfarne foundation, to be bishop in his stead. Rather than creating a large controversy, Wilfrid returned to Ripon and later acted as bishop of Mercia where he introduced the Benedictine Rule. In 669, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Theodore, arrived and quickly restored Wilfrid to his see.30 Wilfrid “returned good for evil, not evil for evil,” and arranged for Chad to become bishop of Mercia.31 By 678, controversy arose. First, Queen Iurmenburgh of Northumbria, like “a second Jezebel” according to Stephanus, convinced her husband, Ecgfrith (672–85) to turn against the bishop.32 The pair then bribed Archbishop Theodore to divide Wilfrid’s diocese into three parts and appoint new bishops to these. Unable to convince the king or archbishop to reverse their decisions, Wilfrid traveled to Rome where Pope Agatho (678–81) ruled that he had committed no wrong and should be restored to his see.33 Upon returning to Anglo-Saxon England, the bishop’s enemies accused him of attaining papal favor through bribes and the king, his counselors, and the bishops refused to restore Wilfrid. He was soon thrown in prison. Stephanus accuses the queen of compounding these sins by taking the relics Wilfrid had brought back from Rome and making them into a necklace, just like the Philistines who took the Ark of the Covenant from Israel. In

136


punishment for acting against Wilfrid, the queen was possessed by a demon. Recognizing his error, King Ecgfrith released Wilfrid from jail. However, as soon as Queen Iurmenburgh recovered, the royal pair used their power and influence to make Wilfrid flee from court to court in search of sanctuary.34 The saint finally found refuge for a time in Sussex where he converted the people before being reconciled with Archbishop Theodore who then convinced the new Northumbrian king, Aldfrith (685–705) to restore Wilfrid to his lands. While there was peace for a time, in 691 Wilfrid was once again banished.35 In 702, a council was called at Austerfield to resolve the controversy, but due to the “avarice” of the bishops, some of them testified falsely against Wilfrid. The bishop was deposed and his followers soon excommunicated. To protest these developments, Wilfrid traveled to Rome for a papal ruling and once again was completely exonerated.36 Finally at the Synod of Nidd, in 706, the council ordered that Wilfrid should be restored as bishop at Hexham and given the monastery at Ripon. He died three years after this in 709.37

Stephanus’ portrayal of Wilfrid Unfortunately for Stephanus, Wilfrid spent about twenty-six years of his episcopate in exile from Northumbria. The controversies that led to Wilfrid’s multiple exiles needed to be explained. To do this, Stephanus employed biblical models. From the Old Testament, he equates Wilfrid to prophets and kings who inaugurated new, reformed regimes.38 Stephanus also compares Wilfrid to King David on numerous occasions.39 Wilfrid’s building of the church at Ripon is compared with Moses constructing the tabernacle and Solomon the Temple.40 Stephanus alludes to the New Testament as well. In the Scriptures, the Apostles suffered at the hands of local secular and religious authorities. Naturally, Wilfrid’s persecution is placed within this context. Like Paul, “when falsely condemned by the Jews,” Wilfrid appealed to Rome.41 When Wilfrid was imprisoned by Ecgfrith, he sang psalms and a great light filled his cell, just as happened when Peter was imprisoned. Subsequently, Wilfrid’s chains were always too large and fell off, just as they did with Peter.42 In addition, the New Testament is clear that those who truly follow Christ will be falsely accused and persecuted.43 Given Wilfrid’s association with Roman practices, these parallels to the events in Peter and Paul’s lives are especially interesting. Stephanus also looked to the episcopal martyr cults in Gaul when constructing his model of episcopal sanctity.44 There were numerous seventh- and eighth-century Lives from Gaul that described bishops who


137

were martyred or at least persecuted by secular and ecclesiastical leaders. For instance, Aunemundus (d. c.660), bishop of Lyons and friend of Wilfrid, was assassinated after being accused of treason against King Chlothar III, his own godson.45 Other bishops who were persecuted include Desiderius, bishop of Vienne, Leudegar (662–76), bishop of Autun and Praejectus (d. 676), bishop of Clermont.46 The Lives of all these men blame the jealousy, envy, or corrupt nature of their fellow bishops and secular lords for their downfalls. Stephanus used similar arguments to explain why the archbishops of Canterbury and the kings of Northumbria turned against Wilfrid. Even Jonas’ Life of Columbanus, which Stephanus probably knew, provided excellent examples of a saint at conflict with the secular and ecclesiastical authorities.47 As previously discussed, Jonas blames Queen Brunhild’s jealousy for the conflict in Columbanus’ life. In much the same way, Wilfrid is presented as innocently performing his duties as bishop of Northumbria when King Ecgfrith and Queen Iurmenburgh inexplicitly turned against him. There is irony here of course, for Columbanus was attacked by the episcopal leadership in part because he upheld the alternative Celtic practices. However, by the mid-seventh century, the Columbanian tradition had become so Romanized that it was through this group that Wilfrid became familiar with the Benedictine Rule. In fact in one of the two surviving manuscripts of the Life of Wilfrid, Brunhild, identified as a “second Jezebel” is incorrectly accused of persecuting and murdering nine bishops including Wilfrid’s patron Aunemundus, bishop of Lyons.48 It is notable then that Brunhild, Columbanus’ arch enemy, would be inserted in a copy of the Life of Wilfrid even though she had died long before this incident.49 This provides clear evidence of how well Jonas had succeeded in portraying Columbanus as a fully orthodox saint and the possible ties between the Columbanian and Wilfridian circles. Therefore, Stephanus constructs Wilfrid as an outstanding servant of the Church. Due to the fact that Wilfrid refused to deviate from the truth and was blessed richly by God, he faced persecution by the secular and ecclesiastical leadership of his day. It was his apostolic nature that led his fellow Northumbrians to react with envy and jealousy, and his commitment to Christ-like ideals that ensured his career would be full of controversy.

Stephanus and the Quartodeciman Party In the Life of Wilfrid, the “Quartodecimans” continue to play a role in Northumbrian politics even after Whitby. As discussed, Stephanus usually

138


refers to those who follow the Celtic-84 as Quartodecimans. However, his definition appears much broader than this in the post-Whitby narratives. In the Life, Wilfrid travels to Merovingian Gaul for ordination as a bishop because “in Britain many bishops . . . are Quartodecimans like the Britons and Scots; by them were ordained men whom the Apostolic See does not receive into communion, nor does she even receive those who have fellowship with the schismatics.”50 This is a bold statement that questions the ordination of most of the priests and bishops in Anglo-Saxon England at the time and argues that those who associate with the Quartodecimans are also to be shunned.51 These are similar to the attitudes found in Theodore’s Penitential. Stephanus also includes other references to the Quartodeciman party post-Whitby. According to the Life, during Wilfrid’s absence from Northumbria for his consecration, Oswiu, “was instructed by those who adhered to the Quartodeciman party in opposition to the rule of the Apostolic See” to appoint Chad as bishop in Wilfrid’s place.52 In the next chapter, Chad, “fully understanding then the wrongdoing implied in his ordination to another’s see by the Quartrodecimans,” stepped down as bishop and performed the necessary penance for his sin.53 Since all those who followed the Celtic-84 had left Northumbria, Stephanus’ “Quartodeciman party” most likely refers to those who adopted Roman practices but refused to condemn Aidan and Lindisfarne’s heritage.54

Summary Writing the Life of Wilfrid proved challenging for Stephanus in numerous ways. He had to justify why Wilfrid seemed to be involved in controversy throughout most of his career. In order to do this, Stephanus called upon a number of models. Using the form of episcopal martyr cults from the Continent, he blamed the conflict on the jealousy of Wilfrid’s secular and ecclesiastical peers. Looking at biblical models, Stephanus was able to argue that those who truly followed a Christian path would be persecuted. He was also able to turn to the existence of the Quartodeciman party to explain some of the difficulties Wilfrid experienced after the Synod of Whitby. Not all of Stephanus’ models were defensive, however. He was at pains in the Life to stress Wilfrid’s contributions to the Anglo-Saxon Church. This was the bishop who introduced Roman practices, popularized the Benedictine Rule, built and endowed churches, brought skilled artisans from the Continent, and converted many in Sussex and Frisia. Perhaps the best summary of Wilfrid’s accomplishments comes from a speech Stephanus attributes to him at the Synod of Austerfield in c.702, approximately


139

thirty-eight years after the Synod of Whitby. After being asked to retire quietly to Ripon, Wilfrid responds: Was I not the first . . . to root out the poisonous weeds planted by the Scots? Did I not change and convert the whole of the Northumbrian race to the true Easter and to the tonsure in the form of a crown, in accordance with the practice of the Apostolic See . . . ? And did I not instruct them in accordance with the rite of the primitive Church to make use of a double choir signing in harmony, with reciprocal responses and antiphons? And did I not arrange the life of the monks in accordance with the rule of the holy father Benedict which none had previously introduced there?55

Thus, Wilfrid and his supporters believed his right to continue to exercise episcopal authority was based in part on his crucial role in introducing Roman customs and practices. It would be in the atmosphere of these claims that Lindisfarne would need to construct its arguments for episcopal power and sanctity.

Lindisfarne after Whitby Just after Whitby, the Lindisfarne community was sundered as members abandoned the monastery rather than accept the Roman practices. Also, the see was moved from Lindisfarne to York, diminishing the community’s political and religious influence. With Wilfrid as bishop of Northumbria and Oswiu having ruled in favor of Roman practices, Lindisfarne could no longer afford to maintain its close ties with Iona, even if Iona had wished to remain in support of a daughter house that rejected its traditions. It is not hard to imagine that this was a very difficult and upsetting time for the community.56 Men from daughter houses associated with Lindisfarne did continue to be elected and hold important ecclesiastical positions. However, Lindisfarne was no longer a center of ecclesiastical authority in Northumbria. It would be seventeen years after Whitby until its episcopal see was finally restored. Even then however, the bishop of Lindisfarne controlled only a portion of Northumbria rather than the whole kingdom as in the past. This is because when Wilfrid was exiled in 678, Archbishop Theodore divided the Northumbrian diocese: Bosa, a Whitby monk, became bishop of Deira with his see at York and Eata, abbot of Lindisfarne, became bishop of Bernicia with his see at Hexham.57 In 681, Eata transferred to Lindisfarne and remained there until he returned to Hexham in 685 so that Cuthbert could become bishop at Lindisfarne.

140


Cuthbert (685–87), Bishop of Lindisfarne and Saint Lindisfarne’s promotion of the cult of St. Cuthbert is telling. On the surface, Aidan appears the more likely candidate as the focus of a saint-cult. While Aidan was bishop for seventeen years, Cuthbert led for less than two. In addition, Aidan ruled as bishop of all of Northumbria, but Cuthbert controlled only the diocese of Lindisfarne. On top of this, Aidan was the first to lead the community at Lindisfarne and most monasteries are associated with their founding saints. What made Cuthbert the better focus of a cult was the fact that while Aidan had always used the Celtic-84, Cuthbert had abandoned the alternative Celtic practices and was elected bishop twenty-one years after the Synod of Whitby. Thus it would be possible to present him as an orthodox saint. It is crucial to keep in mind that the works being produced by and for the Lindisfarne community about Cuthbert were composed not just to glorify and champion the saint, but counter the Wilfridian party as well. In the ecclesiastical climate of the late seventh to early eighth century, Wilfrid’s influence meant that a saint’s legitimacy was partially defined by his/her adherence to Roman practices.58 In order for Cuthbert to be presented as a viable alternative to Wilfrid, his orthodoxy had to be beyond question. Therefore, Cuthbert’s Celtic past had to be minimized and any possible Roman connections highlighted or invented. However, it is important to emphasize that Lindisfarne and her supporters represented the moderate party in the Northumbrian Church. This group used the Roman practices but would not condemn the sanctity of those who had followed the Celtic-84 in the past.59 Thus while Wilfrid would have argued that Aidan was a heretic, the community at Lindisfarne continued to honor its founding saint and in fact interred his remains in a place of honor near the altar.60 Ironically, the apparent friction between Wilfrid and the moderate party meant that the alternative Celtic practices continued to be a relevant issue long after there was any portion of the Northumbrian Church that actually supported them. If Wilfrid and his followers had not remained a political consideration or if the Wilfridian circle had not promoted their part in bringing Roman orthodoxy to Northumbria, it is doubtful whether the Celtic heritage of Lindisfarne would have remained much of an issue after 664. It probably would have quietly faded away. This is at least what occurred on the Continent in association with Luxeuil and the Columbanian monasteries.


141

Short Summary of the life of Cuthbert Cuthbert entered the monastery of Melrose, a Lindisfarne daughter house, in 651 and sometime before 658 transferred to the monastery at Ripon.61 When Alhfrith, sub-king of Deira, gave Ripon to Wilfrid and mandated Roman customs, Cuthbert was one of the monks who returned to Melrose rather than abandon the Celtic practices.62 After the Synod of Whitby, it appears that Cuthbert decided to adopt the Dionysian table and Roman tonsure. He also soon thereafter became prior of Lindisfarne. Around 676, wanting a more anchoritic lifestyle, he moved to a solitary existence on Farne Island, off the coast of Northumbria.63 In 685, Cuthbert, somewhat against his will, was chosen as bishop of Hexham. He refused to leave Lindisfarne, so Bishop Eata was transferred to Hexham while Cuthbert assumed the duties at Lindisfarne.64 Within two years, he stepped down as bishop, returning to his hermitage on Farne. He died on February 20, 687.

Anonymous Life of Cuthbert and Celtic Practices The anonymous Life was written in c.700 by a monk in the Lindisfarne community.65 The author provided only a loose chronology and few extraneous details regarding the people and places that are mentioned in the text. By using this style, the anonymous Life is able to gloss over Cuthbert’s early training at Melrose. In fact the Life “refrains from referring to any person, place or practice as being Irish.”66 The author does state however that Cuthbert received a Petrine tonsure while he was a monk at Ripon.67 This is incorrect. Cuthbert was a monk at Ripon in c.660 when it was under Lindisfarne’s influence and thus there is little chance that he would have received a Roman tonsure there. Instead he adopted the Petrine tonsure when he came to Lindisfarne as prior following the Synod of Whitby. By only once linking Cuthbert with Roman practices and then never discussing the subject again, the author allows the reader to conclude that Cuthbert had always been trained in Roman traditions. As this document was produced at Lindisfarne, it also indicates that the community wanted to disassociate one of its greatest saints from his Celtic heritage.68 The anonymous Life also states that Cuthbert instituted a monastic rule at Lindisfarne, which was used “even to this day along with the rule of St. Benedict.”69 This brings to mind the mixed rules of the Columbanian communities. No copy of Cuthbert’s rule survives so it is difficult to assess in what ways if any it was influenced or altered by contact with the Benedictine Rule. What can be said was that in the late seventh and early

142


eighth centuries, it was Wilfrid and his party who claimed to have brought correct Roman teaching to Northumbria in the form of the Benedictine Rule. Therefore the author of the Life may have been trying to demonstrate that Cuthbert’s way of life was fully compatible with Roman practices.70 The Lindisfarne author also associates Cuthbert with continental saints.71 For instance, part of the prologue of the Life comes from the preface to Athanasius’ Life of Antony.72 An additional passage from this work can be found in the first chapter of book two. Antony is considered one of the founders of monasticism and so it is understandable that the author of the Life of Cuthbert wished to link these two men. The preface of the anonymous Life is taken from chapter one of Sulpicius Severus’ Life of St. Martin. Book three also includes another passage from Sulpicius Severus. The Lindisfarne author wanted the reader to understand that Cuthbert was a monk-bishop in the tradition of St. Martin of Tours. Interestingly, a passage from the material that accompanied the Victorian Easter tables is found in the first portion of the Life’s prologue. Though Lindisfarne would have been using the Dionysian table, this may still have been a subtle way of reinforcing the fact that both Cuthbert and Lindisfarne followed Roman Easter traditions. The importance of associating Cuthbert with Roman practices can also be seen on the coffin created for him in 698. Just before this date, the monks at Lindisfarne discovered that Cuthbert’s body had not corrupted, even though he had died thirteen years previously. With this obvious proof that he was a saint, the community decided to translate his body. This event probably occasioned the writing of the anonymous Life and the creation of the Lindisfarne Gospels. The wooden coffin is surrounded by pictures of the Apostles, including one of Peter who is portrayed with a Roman tonsure.73 This image of Peter may well have been a way for the community to visibly reinforce the orthodoxy of Cuthbert and his loyalty to Roman traditions.74

Bede’s Lives of Cuthbert Bede composed two Lives of Cuthbert, one in metrical verse and one in prose. The metrical Life of Cuthbert was written before 716.75 In it, Bede does not include the information that Cuthbert had a Roman tonsure nor does he attempt to create any link between the saint and the Benedictine Rule. However, like the author of the anonymous Life, he includes no information in his poem that would connect Cuthbert with the Celtic practices. In the preface to the prose Life of Cuthbert, Bede states that the Lindisfarne community had commissioned him to write a Life of St. Cuthbert and that he had interviewed members of the community for


143

this project. He adds that the monks at Lindisfarne read both a preliminary and final draft of the text. Taking these facts into consideration, there can be no doubt that the ideas expressed in the prose Life reflect the attitudes and opinions not only of the author, but those of Lindisfarne as well. There are many theories about why Bede chose to write a new prose Life for Cuthbert when an adequate one had been composed about twenty years previously.76 First, after the composition of the anonymous Life of Cuthbert, Stephanus completed the Life of Wilfrid. Bede may have felt the need to produce a new Life that clearly emphasized the saint’s condemnation of Celtic practices. Also, Stephanus, when composing the Life of Wilfrid, incorporated much of the prologue of the anonymous Life of Cuthbert into his own prologue along with additional parallels and borrowings.77 It is possible that Stephanus was responding to the anonymous Life. This, in turn, forced the Lindisfarne community to commission a new Life of Cuthbert. Other historians point to the fact that Bede portrays Cuthbert as a model monk-bishop.78 It is possible that this was a direct attack upon Wilfrid’s controversial career. In the anonymous Life, Cuthbert is primarily a miracle worker. In Bede’s prose Life, Cuthbert has been transformed into a master of pastoral care both for the Lindisfarne community and the wider lay society.79 Humility is another theme that runs through the prose Life. While Wilfrid fought to be reestablished as bishop after his exile in 678, Cuthbert did not feel worthy to be a bishop, and had to be persuaded to accept the office.80 The Life of Wilfrid includes significant information on Wilfrid’s “persecution” by the archbishop of Canterbury and different Northumbrian monarchs.81 Keeping this in mind, it is interesting that Bede’s construct of Cuthbert incorporates the theme of suffering, both in terms of persecution and from physical illness.82 However, in the prose Life and the History, Bede subtly implies that Wilfrid is the persecutor, the one who causes problems for Cuthbert and Lindisfarne.83 In all probability, Bede wrote the prose Life for a number of complex reasons. Whatever his varied goals for the work, he needed to remain silent about Cuthbert’s earlier adherence to Celtic practices.84 For example, in the narrative concerning the establishment of the monastery at Ripon in c.658, Bede states that Abbot Eata instigated “therein the same rules of discipline as were observed at Melrose.”85 Since he has not discussed the fact that Melrose was a daughter house of Lindisfarne and therefore following Ionan traditions, the reader is ignorant of Ripon’s Celtic ties. In addition, he provides no explanation for why Cuthbert and the monks at Ripon were forced to return to Melrose soon after its foundation.86 It is only by correlating this event with the History, written about ten years later, that the reader is aware

144


that Cuthbert was kicked out of Ripon for refusing to adopt Roman practices. Therefore, in the Life, Bede is able to discuss Cuthbert’s early training without ever mentioning that it was Celtic. Interestingly, Aidan is referred to twice in the prose Life. Bede first relates that Cuthbert had a vision of angels carrying a soul, later identified as Aidan, to heaven. This same narrative is found in the anonymous and metrical Lives.87 The story serves to reinforce the belief of the moderate party that Aidan was not a heretic.88 However, while he is described as holy and virtuous, none of these accounts provide any information linking the bishop to Iona. The second mention of Aidan is found within Bede’s explanation of why Lindisfarne was both an episcopal see and a monastery.89 Bede tells the reader that this situation exists because Aidan was a monk and continued to live a monastic life even while a bishop. However, Bede does not link this with Iona, but instead uses Pope Gregory to support this practice.90 He quotes portions of the Libellus Responsionum where the pope instructs Augustine that since he is bishop as well as a monk, he should live a communal life with his clergy.91 Therefore, there is no mention of Iona, but Lindisfarne’s early organization is tied to the papacy. As with the anonymous Life, Bede compares Cuthbert to other saints, though not any with a Celtic background. For instance, he associates Cuthbert with St. Benedict numerous times in the Life either by directly mentioning him by name or including miracles that mirror those found in Pope Gregory’s writings about Benedict.92 Cuthbert is also associated with Sts. Antony and Augustine.93 In addition, Bede presents Cuthbert as condemning the Celtic Easter dating.94 According to the prose Life, just before Cuthbert’s death, he called a number of the Lindisfarne community together. He advised them to offer hospitality to those who seek it, but to “have no communion with those who depart from the unity of catholic peace, either in not celebrating Easter at the proper time or in evil living.”95 This speech is not included in either the anonymous or metrical Life and whether or not Cuthbert actually said this cannot be verified. It seems somewhat out of character given Cuthbert’s travels in Pictland, which still adhered to the Celtic-84.96 However, given the fact that this is a supposed eye-witness account by Herefrith, abbot of Lindisfarne, and that the Lindisfarne community approved Bede’s final draft of the prose Life this must represent what Lindisfarne wanted people to believe. The fact that this death speech is included in a Life written in c.720 demonstrates the continuing controversy surrounding the alternative Celtic practices. Why else would the Lindisfarne community have wanted Bede to present Cuthbert condemning those who violated the unity of the Church by using the Celtic-84?


145

Summary The various Lives of Cuthbert provide crucial information on the ongoing ramifications of the Easter controversy in the Northumbrian Church. As Wilfrid continued to be a major force in the Northumbrian Church for decades after Whitby and as he based his authority partially on his reputation for bringing Roman practices to Northumbria, Lindisfarne’s Celtic heritage remained a hindrance. The fact that Cuthbert occupied one of the bishoprics created when Wilfrid was exiled and Theodore divided the diocese did not help matters. Lindisfarne clearly lost political power after the Synod of Whitby with the removal of the see to York. As it attempted to reestablish itself as a bishopric, cult-center, and political player in Northumbria, the community needed to find a saint. Aidan, while founder of Lindisfarne and bishop of the whole of Northumbria for many years, was compromised by his support of the Celtic Easter table. Cuthbert was a viable option for a cult to rival Wilfrid. He had upheld the Celtic practices before 664, but he abandoned them after Whitby. While Wilfrid seemed to spend much of his career as bishop in the center of controversy and in exile, Cuthbert’s was one of relative peace. If the writers of his Lives could establish his “Roman” credentials, then Cuthbert could assist Lindisfarne in justifying its elevation as a cult center. The writer of the anonymous Life gave Cuthbert a Roman tonsure and compared him with Roman saints, including verbatim passages from other Lives. Bede’s metrical Life dropped the information regarding the Roman tonsure, but managed to discuss Cuthbert’s background without ever hinting at the Celtic ties. When Bede composed the prose Life he established Cuthbert’s Roman heritage through the linkage to orthodox saints, connecting Lindisfarne’s organizational structure to the advice given by Pope Gregory the Great, and providing a death speech that clearly and forcibly condemned those who continued to use the Celtic-84. Though the three Lives differ in their portrayal of Cuthbert, all establish him as a thoroughly orthodox saint in the heritage of Sts. Antony and Benedict.

Bede’s History, Wilfrid, and Lindisfarne It seems appropriate to finish this chapter by discussing the ways in which Bede decided to portray both Wilfrid and the Lindisfarne community in his History. In many ways it is this work, rather than the various Lives produced in early eighth-century Northumbria, that provided the “final word” on

146


both the bishop and Lindisfarne. The History remains the most widely read of the writings discussed in this chapter, and thus Bede’s vision and presentation continues to be the most influential.

Bede’s Portrayal of Wilfrid Except for the Synod of Whitby narrative, Bede tends to underplay Wilfrid’s influence in Northumbria. While Wilfrid was an important bishop for over forty-five years, his political and ecclesiastical involvement in Northumbria is often unclear or simply not mentioned in the History.97 Many chapters of the History refer to Wilfrid, but this is usually in passing.98 Only four chapters actually discuss events of his life in any depth: two discuss events surrounding Whitby and Wilfrid’s appointment to the episcopacy, one is focused on his efforts to convert the south Saxons, and the last is a general overview of his life.99 All of this can be contrasted with Bede’s focus on Cuthbert even within the History. Although Cuthbert was bishop for only two years, and only bishop of Lindisfarne, Bede includes six chapters that focus on his career and miracles.100 One reason for Bede’s silence about Wilfrid’s episcopacy is that the bishop was continually at odds with the Northumbrian secular and ecclesiastical hierarchy. His career highlights the factions within the Northumbrian Church and the political maneuvering behind many events, something that Bede minimizes. In the History, Bede usually portrays the Northumbrian secular and ecclesiastical leadership working together to promote the good of the Church. In addition, Bede believed that bishops should live simple lives, dedicated above all to pastoral care.101 Wilfrid’s building large stone churches, his many retainers, his desire to keep Northumbria as a single diocese—something Bede saw as incompatible with good pastoral care—were all at odds with Bede’s models of a good bishop.102 Another issue is that some of those portrayed as excellent role models in the History could have been tarnished by revealing too much about Wilfrid’s career. For instance, it can be assumed that the exile of the bishop of Northumbria would merit some detail, but Bede simply states that conflict arose between King Ecgfrith and Wilfrid.103 No explanation is given. In the next chapter, Bede adds that while in exile, Wilfrid traveled to many places, including Rome, but he does not mention that Wilfrid obtained a ruling from the papacy that either he should be restored to the whole of the diocese of Northumbria or, if it did remain divided, that he should be able to choose his episcopal colleagues.104 Bede had a problem at this point in the narrative. Neither King Ecgfrith nor Archbishop Theodore abided by


147

the pope’s decision. In addition, Lindisfarne was one of the dioceses that should have been returned to Wilfrid. Thus, Bede’s model of episcopal sanctity technically held his see against papal ruling. By simply presenting Wilfrid’s exile as a purely secular conflict, Bede did not have to discuss controversial details and no harm was done to Cuthbert’s or Theodore’s reputation.

Bede’s History and Lindisfarne By the time that Bede decided to compose the History, the issue of the alternative Celtic traditions was in flux. While the British still stubbornly clung to their heretical practices, Iona and its associated monasteries had finally adopted the “Catholic way” in 716, approximately fifteen years before the completion of the History. The Lindisfarne community had been following the Dionysian table and Roman tonsure for almost seventy years. In addition, the influence of the Wilfridian party seems to have been fading allowing Bede more freedom to discuss Lindisfarne’s past. By 731, although three Lives had been written about Cuthbert, none of these included any information on the foundation of Lindisfarne. It seems that Bede’s History is the first work to incorporate these stories since there is no surviving Life for Aidan. Lindisfarne appears to have been at pains to separate itself from its Ionan past and to condemn the Celtic-84 in the writings that emerged from this community in the early eighth century. The fact that, in the History, Bede is very open that Aidan, Fínán, and Colmán were from Iona most likely reflects the changing ecclesiastical climate within Northumbria where information about these early bishops would not seriously harm the community’s reputation as long as the Celtic practices were condemned. As with Bede’s prose Life of Cuthbert, throughout the chapters on Cuthbert in the History, the reader is never informed that the saint was one of the monks thrown out of Ripon for refusing to convert to Roman practices, nor is his Celtic heritage mentioned at all. Bede portrays Cuthbert as Lindisfarne’s greatest saint and an excellent ecclesiastical role model. Cuthbert is shown not only practicing the best qualities of those like Bishop Aidan, but following the Roman practices as well. Here is a fully orthodox saint who embodies both the monastic and priestly ideals.105 Bede is careful to ensure that Cuthbert’s earlier support of Celtic practices is hidden so as to not taint the episcopal model he had created for the Northumbrian Church.

Summary Thus Bede, who was so interested in computistics that he wrote the standard text on the subject and who clearly saw deviation in Easter dating as a

148


critical problem, presents a much more complex picture of the Easter controversy than that found in the papal letters, Theodore’s Penitential, the Cuthbert Lives or the Life of Wilfrid. In part this was because he realized that the followers of the Celtic-84 were not Quartodecimans. Such a claim was inaccurate as Bede is at pains to point out in the History. But Bede’s refusal to use the Quartodeciman accusation rests not just on its inaccuracy, since most, if not all, who used this label against the Celtic tradition would have known it was technically incorrect. Rather for Bede, the critical issue was his belief that those who had used the Celtic table before the Synod of Whitby were mistaken and flawed, but not heretical.

Conclusion By 670, not only were the Irish accusing each other of heresy in regard to Easter, but many other authorities were as well. The papacy continued to encourage those using the Celtic-84 to come back to the Catholic and apostolic faith. The Penitential of Theodore includes penances both for actually using this table and for just associating with those who did. Aldhelm’s letter demonstrates that at least some of the British bishops refused to associate with those who adopted the Dionysian table. While Bede always explained that those from Iona were simply ignorant, this would not have reflected the opinion of many in the Church. After 664, no community in Northumbria still used the Celtic-84; however, the controversy surrounding this table continued well into the eighth century. Divergent Easter dating was clearly a matter of concern to many in the early medieval Church. However, it also could become an element in ecclesiastical politics well beyond the specific issues of Easter calculation. In Northumbria, Wilfrid’s claim to authority based on his introduction of Roman practices and his branding of the Celtic-84 as Quartodeciman meant that in many ways the Easter controversy continued long after Whitby. In fact, it appears that the Church was divided between the extreme views of Wilfrid and those of the moderate party who refused to condemn Lindisfarne’s early bishops. However, even with the existence of these more moderate voices, if Cuthbert were to be a saint who could compete with Wilfrid, his Celtic past needed to be explained, either by deliberately creating “facts” or by simply being silent with regard to his heritage. By the time of the completion of the History the situation was somewhat different. Iona had abandoned the Celtic-84 bringing it back into the orthodox fold. In addition, the influence of the Wilfridian communities was on the wane. Therefore, Bede could add a significant amount of


149

information about Aidan to his History, portraying him as saintly, but flawed through the ignorance of using the wrong table. It is Wilfrid who may have suffered most from Bede’s History. Though bishop from 664/65 to his death in 709, he practically disappears from the narrative at many points. While highlighting Wilfrid’s role at Whitby, Bede never portrays him as the sole savior of the Northumbrian, and by extension, the Anglo-Saxon Church. Whether due to personal animosity, a dislike for Wilfrid’s pastoral style, or simply an attempt to minimize any conflict in the Church, Wilfrid plays only a supporting role in Bede’s construct of the early Northumbrian Church.

Chapter 9 Iona, the Picts, and the British

By 700, only two major groups continued to use the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure. These were Iona and its associated communities including those in Dál Ríata and Pictland, and parts of the British Church. Iona was faced with internal divisions as some adopted the Roman table while others refused. In Pictland, as in Northumbria, the crown played a leading role in unifying the Church behind one Easter practice. For the British, it is probable that a combination of increased isolation and politics influenced their decision to switch to the Dionysian table in 768.

Primary Sources One primary source that has not yet been introduced but is vital for understanding this period is the Annals of Ulster.1 It was compiled sometime in the eleventh century, but most scholars argue that at least portions of the entries up until the year 740 were derived from a set of annals kept at Iona.2 In the Annals of Ulster, events are simply listed year by year; no commentary or explanation is usually provided. For instance, among the events for the year 716 (715) are noted: 1. The killing of the king of the Saxons, Osred, son of Aldfrid, grandson of Oswy. 2. Garnat son of Deile Roith dies. 3. Fogartach grandson of Cernach reigns again. 4. [The date of ] Easter is changed at the monastery of Í 5. Faelchú, son of Doirbéne, in the 74th year of his age assumed the see of Columba on Saturday the fourth of the Kalends of September.3

Iona, the Picts, and the British

151

For most years in the late seventh and early eighth century, approximately five to eight events are recorded. Historians have spent tremendous time attempting to understand these often cryptic statements and even today there is disagreement over the interpretation of some entries. Also complicating matters for the historian is the fact that the entries in the Annals of Ulster are incorrect by one year in this period and thus entries are adjusted one year forward. For instance, the entry quoted above for 716 is actually listed as 715 in the manuscripts. Other important annals survive from the eleventh and twelfth century, including the Annals of Tigernach and the Annals of Inisfallen.4 As with the Annals of Ulster, some of these appear to have incorporated information from annals compiled at Iona before 740. Recent work on the chronological apparatus of some of the major Irish annals is assisting historians in comparing the dates and events among these various documents.5 From the British side, historians can reference the ninth-century Historia Brittonum or History of the Britons, tenth-century Annales Cambriae or Welsh Annals, and thirteenth-century Brut y Tywysogyon or Chronicle of the Princes.6 As with the Irish annals, these sources provide little explanation or commentary on the events they list within each year. The fact that each was compiled significantly after the dates in question also causes difficulties with using these sources.

Iona The abbots of Iona were involved from the beginning of the Easter controversy in Ireland. As discussed previously, both Cummian’s Letter and the one from Pope John in 640 were specifically addressed to Ségéne, abbot of Iona.7 It has been suggested that as additional Irish churches abandoned the Celtic-84, Iona became increasingly entrenched in its support for this table. It appears that Iona justified using the Celtic-84 in part because Columba had done so. Since Iona’s authority rested on Columba’s sanctity and as most of the abbots in the seventh century were related to Columba, it is understandable that they were unwilling to abandon their traditional table.8

Adomnán and the Easter Controversy Adomnán (679–704), abbot of Iona, was the next major figure from Iona to be involved in the Easter controversy.9 He was good friends with King Aldfrith of Northumbria who himself had spent time at Iona.10 Adomnán

152


visited Northumbria in c.685/86 where he was able to secure the release of Irish prisoners taken when Ecgfrith, the previous king of Northumbria, invaded Ireland in 684.11 He made a second trip to Northumbria two years later. During one of these visits he may have made the decision to abandon the Celtic-84.12 If he did accept the Dionysian Easter in 686 or 688, this would fit the pattern of switching Easter tables near the time that the two tables were in agreement (table 6.1). Although he was unable to convince the monks at Iona to use the Roman table, Adomnán traveled to Ireland where he may have been instrumental in the adoption of the Dionysian table by some of the northern Irish churches. Unfortunately, it is difficult to reconstruct the exact chronology of these events. Bede reports only one visit to Northumbria and this is clearly countered by Adomnán’s own testimony in the Life of Columba.13 The History also implies that when Adomnán was unable to convince the Iona community to abandon the Celtic-84, he traveled to Ireland and did not return until around 703, just before his death.14 However, the Irish annals state that Adomnán visited Ireland in 692 and 697 and there is no reason to believe he was away from Iona between these trips.15 One way to solve the contradictions between the Irish annals and Bede is to assume that Adomnán made a third trip to Northumbria sometime near 703. It was at this time that he realized Iona supported an Easter table different from most of the Church and decided to adopt the Dionysian table. Upon his return to Iona, he was unable to convince his fellow monks of the need to adopt Roman practices, and died soon thereafter.16 The major flaw with this theory is the idea that Adomnán was unaware of the problems with the Celtic-84 until a third visit to Northumbria. Given that Iona had been involved in the Easter controversy in Ireland since the 630s and that the issue had so split the Church that separate synods had to be held, it is highly unlikely that Adomnán would have been unfamiliar with the conflict and the arguments on each side.17 It may well be that on a visit to Northumbria he was convinced of the correctness of the Dionysian table, but he was aware of the issues long before this. The other problem with this theory is that there is no record of Adomnán making a third trip to Northumbria late in his life. Another alternative theory is that Bede was wrong and Adomnán never accepted the Roman Easter dating.18 Critics argue that there is no record of this decision in the Irish annals or the Life of Columba. In fact, our only account of Adomnán adopting the Dionysian Easter comes from Bede and other sources which used his History. Although it is dangerous to argue from silence, the lack of any record in Irish sources about the adoption of Roman dating by Adomnán can be explained. As mentioned, one major source for the annals until 740 was a chronicle kept at Iona. It is understandable that Iona would not have wanted to record a major division in the community,


153

especially the abbot practicing what some would have viewed as a heretical Easter. After Iona’s adoption of Roman practices, it still would not have been politically expedient to record that while Adomnán and possibly a portion of the community had accepted the Roman tables by c.690, it took the rest of the community another twenty-five years to make the switch. In the Life of Columba, Adomnán would not have wanted to remind the reader how the saint used an Easter table many saw as heretical. Jonas faced the same problem when writing the Life of Columbanus. The other problem with this theory focuses on Bede. It is true that in the History, he condenses approximately sixteen years of Adomnán’s life into a few paragraphs and that he seems to have either not known all the details of the abbot’s career or felt it was not necessary to include many specifics. However, at the time Bede finished the History, there were still a number of people who would have been alive during Adomnán’s career. Bede himself would have been approximately fifteen years old when Adomnán visited his monastery. If he had deliberately created a claim that his contemporaries knew to be false, this would have undermined his credibility. One other piece of evidence regarding Adomnán’s adoption of Roman dating also comes from the History. In 711, Nechtan, king of the Picts, wrote to Ceolfrid, abbot of Jarrow for information about the Easter controversy.19 In Ceolfrid’s letter, he presents Adomnán following the Roman Easter. Given that Adomnán had died about six years before this letter was written and the close ties between Iona and the Picts, there would have been no reason for Ceolfrid to claim Adomnán’s allegiance to the Roman table if it were untrue. Nechtan was in a position to know which table Adomnán supported. Thus, it seems likely that Adomnán did accept the Dionysian Easter sometime in the 680s. Besides not mentioning Adomnán’s second visit to Northumbria and his return to Iona before 703, another area where Bede may be incorrect is in the claim that Adomnán convinced the northern Irish churches outside of the control of Iona to abandon the Celtic-84.20 As discussed earlier, Armagh had probably adopted the Dionysian table before 687.21 It is possible that Bede knew approximately when Adomnán switched to the Dionysian table and assumed that the change at Armagh was somehow associated with this event.22 Another possible interpretation to Bede’s statement is that while Armagh and its associated churches had made the change to the Roman table, other congregations were still using the Celtic-84 and it is these communities to which Bede referred. This confusion regarding Adomnán’s life between 686 and 704 only complicates attempts to understand how Iona operated when part of the community followed the Celtic-84 but the abbot had accepted the Dionysian table. Although Bede argues that none of the Iona familia

154


accepted the Roman dating while Adomnán was abbot, it is possible that some communities followed him.23 Thus, after c.690, Iona and its dependent monasteries split into two groups—one using the Celtic-84 and the other the Dionysian. This dual usage continued until all of the Iona community accepted the Dionysian dating in c.716. It does not seem possible that the Iona community itself or any individual community within the familia could have functioned using both tables. After 689, the tables did not agree until 709 and 713 and diverged after this until 743. Since fourteen weeks of the ecclesiastical calendar is contingent upon the date of Easter, a monastery using both tables would need to follow different fasts, prayers, and celebrations for between fifteen and eighteen weeks depending on how badly the Easter dates diverged. It is difficult to imagine any community functioning when it had to adapt to providing different meals, chanting divergent passages of the Scriptures, and all of the other abundant complexities. In addition, if part of a community had chosen to use a dating method others saw as wrong, this would have only heightened tensions. Given that there were theological arguments attached to each table and accusations of heresy abounding in the wider Church, it seems impossible that any individual community could have survived intact for long with this type of internal strife.

Life of Columba and the Cáin Adomnáin (Law of Adomnán) If Bede and Stephanus have correctly reflected Colmán’s arguments at the Synod of Whitby, allegiance to Columba was a major claim in the continuing support of the Celtic-84.24 In light of this, Adomnán’s loyalty to Columba may have been in doubt with his switch to the Roman Easter. His composition of the Life of Columba around the hundredth anniversary of the saint’s death may have been a way of proving to the community that it was possible to support Columba and the Roman method of calculating Easter.25 Sharpe has argued that the Life has a primarily domestic focus.26 While there are some narratives that take place outside Iona, many are set at the community. This may demonstrate that monks of Iona were one of the main audiences for his work.27 In the Life, Adomnán presents Columba as a saint equal to those such as Martin of Tours and Antony. He quotes passages form Sulpicius Severus’ Life of Martin and Evagrius’ translation of Anathanasius’ Life of Antony.28 As with the Lives of Cuthbert, there are also connections to Pope Gregory’s narratives about Benedict.29 Another passage in the Life of Columba directly compares a miracle with one found in the Life of St. Germanus of Auxerre by Constantius


155

of Lyons.30 All of this may have been an attempt to prove to the community that he truly believed in Columba’s holiness and status as a saint and that his rejection of traditional practices did not undermine this certainty. Of course, Adomnán would have also written the Life with Iona’s critics in mind. His use of other Lives demonstrates that no matter which Easter table Iona followed, its founder was a saint. It has also been suggested that Wilfrid’s championing of the Rule of St. Benedict may be one of the reasons Adomnán specifically compared Columba to Benedict. In this way the Life was a counter to the accusations of heresy by Wilfrid and his party.31 In 697, Adomnán was instrumental in bringing together a large number of secular and ecclesiastical leaders at the Synod of Birr where ninety-one guarantors agreed to support and uphold the Law of Adomnán or the Law of Innocents.32 This law or regulation set extraordinary punishments for violence committed against clerics, children, and most especially women. While normally within Irish society crimes against women resulted in fines approximately half the size of those assessed when a similar crime was committed against a man of the same class, in Adomnán’s law additional fines were added for crimes against women. In the case of murder, it was actually double the fine normally paid for killing a man.33 Iona played a vital role in both the propagation and the administration of this law. It was only due to Adomnán’s links through the Columban communities and his personal family ties that kings from Ireland, Dál Ríata, and the Picts supported this law. The ability to bring so many important secular and ecclesiastical leaders together demonstrates a high level of respect for Adomnán and the authority he could call upon as head of the Columban familia. In addition, this document specifically states that Iona would choose the judges to oversee cases involving this law and, except for cases of murder, a special fine was assessed that was paid directly to the community.34 For murder, along with the special fine, an additional penalty was paid to Iona.35 If Adomnán’s adoption of the Dionysian table had raised doubts as to his loyalty to St. Columba himself and to the Columban familia, the composition of the Life of Columba and the propagation of the Law of Adomnán may have calmed some of these fears. He had not only upheld the saintly nature of Iona’s founder, comparing him with popular continental saints, he also had expanded the community’s moral authority as the guardians of a law that protected the innocent.

After Adomnán’s Death In the period after Adomnán’s death in 704, the annals list conflicting information about who was heading Iona and the Columban familia. For

156


instance, taking information from the various annals it appears that Conamail was abbot from 704 to 710, but Dúnchad was abbot from 707 to 717. Dorbéne ruled for five months in 713 while Fáelchú took power in 716 until his death in 724.36 It has been suggested that this might reflect Iona’s division into two camps: one following the Dionysian table and the other the Celtic-84.37 However, others have argued that this may simply reflect the appointment of a co-abbots and therefore there was no internal controversy within the community. The annals do not provide additional information and there is no other evidence to help historians interpret these statements. Therefore, while it is certainly possible that the community split over the Easter controversy, this cannot be proven. In the end, Sharpe has correctly cautioned us to “admit that it is impossible to interpret how the abbacy was occupied during this period.”38

Summary While the exact chronology of Adomnán’s career is difficult to construct, it is likely that he adopted the Dionysian table sometime in the mid- to late 680s. At this time the Columban familia divided between those communities that followed Adomnán’s lead and those which supported the traditions set in place by Columba. While this would have caused tremendous stress within the Columban community, it appears that Adomnán worked to prove that it was possible to honor Columba and to support the Dionysian table. Both the Life of Columba and the Law of Adomnán uphold the jurisdiction and authority of Iona and her associated communities. After Adomnán’s death, there appear to have been two abbots of Iona in 707–10, 713, and 716–17. It is possible that these instances reflect conflict over the Easter controversy with the two groups recognizing different abbots. However, it could be simply that Iona decided to have co-abbots or that the information presented in the annals is incorrect. At best all that can be said, given the practical and theological aspects of the Easter controversy, is that tension and polarization within the Columban familia seems inevitable.

Letter from Abbot Ceolfrid to Nechtan, King of the Picts Around 711, Nechtan (706–24/25, 728/29) wrote to Ceolfrid, abbot of Jarrow, requesting arguments for adopting the Roman Easter and tonsure.


157

Ceolfrid responded with a long letter condemning the Celtic and Victorian tables and the Celtic tonsure. As Bede was already an expert in computistics by this time, many historians assume that he assisted his abbot in the composition of the letter.39 It is difficult to assess why Nechtan chose to write to Ceolfrid when he did. Bede says that before writing the letter, Nechtan had wanted to abandon the Celtic-84, but needed additional arguments “in order to make the change more easily and with greater authority.”40 According to Bede, Nechtan was interested not only in Easter, but the tonsure and building churches in the Roman style. It is certainly possible that Nechtan understood some of the practical and theological issues in the Easter controversy, including the increasing computistical problems in the Celtic-84, but this does not adequately explain his overtures to Jarrow. Iona had been influential in Pictland since the time of Columba and all indications point to its continuing importance in the Pictish Church when Nechtan became king.41 Adomnán interacted with Bruide son of Bili (c.672–c.692), king of the Picts.42 Nechtan’s brother, King Bruide (697–706) was one of the signatories to the Law of Adomnán.43 In the Life of Columba, Adomnán relates how the churches in Dál Ríata and Pictland had been spared twice during recent plagues because they revered Columba.44 Additional support for the continuing involvement of Iona in Pictland comes from place-name evidence. Not only are there many dedications to Columba, but to Adomnán and other late-seventh and early-eighth-century abbots as well.45 Contact with Adomnán and his successors raises the question as to whether the Picts adopted the Dionysian table and Roman tonsure under the influence of Northumbria, as Bede indicates, or with the encouragement of the Roman party within the Columban familia. Some historians have agued that Adomnán himself began the process of converting the Pictish Churches to the Roman Easter.46 Veitch goes further than this, claiming that at the time Nechtan wrote to Ceolfrid, most of the Pictish Church had already adopted Roman practices; the south through the work of Adomnán and the north due to Curetán, a bishop associated with the Columban community. In his theory, the letter was simply part of a plan to secure better relations with Northumbria during a period of internal strife, and Nechtan’s “adoption” of Roman practices throughout his kingdom implied very little actual change.47 An analysis of the limited evidence available supports a theory that Nechtan faced a number of challenges in the period when Ceolfrid’s wrote his letter. Nechtan succeeded his brother Bruide as king in c.706.48 In 710, two of Nechtan’s sons were killed while fighting the Cenél Comgaill.49 In 711, a battle was fought against the Northumbrian lord Berhtfrith and the

158


Picts were defeated.50 In 713, the annals report that Ciniod son of Derili had been killed and that “[Talorg] son of Drostan is held captive by his brother king Nechtan.”51 It has been postulated that while Ciniod may have been Nechtan’s full brother, Talorg was only a half-brother by the same mother. Both Nechtan and Bruide were from a line of the royal family connected to the Cenél Comgaill of Dál Ríata some of whom had settled in the region of Culross after 685.52 On the other hand, Talorg and his family’s power base may have centered on Atholl as he is later identified as its king in the annals.53 If these reconstructions are correct, it is possible that the events of 713 reflect the attempt by Talorg and his family to seize power from Nechtan.54 Given the Northumbrian attack in 711 and the internal political situation within Pictland between 710 and 715, it is possible that Nechtan’s interest in the Easter question was part of a larger plan to establish better relations with Northumbria. Osred (705–16), king of Northumbria, had inherited the throne as a child. Wilfrid was both Osred’s foster-father and, according to Stephanus, instrumental in having the young boy chosen as king. Ceolfrid, to whom Nechtan’s letter is addressed, had been at Ripon while Wilfrid was abbot and later this bishop had been a patron and supporter of Jarrow.55 Though Wilfrid had died in 709, the court still supported the Wilfridian communities, so choosing to write to Ceolfrid makes sense if Nechtan was hoping that aligning with the Northumbrian Church could assist political relations as well. Along with Bede’s reputation in computistics, this could be another reason Nechtan wrote to Jarrow, rather than say Lindisfarne. While better relations with Northumbria were important to Nechtan, it is also probable that he was faced with a Church divided over the Easter question. Parts of southern Pictland had been under Northumbrian control until 685, so these sectors would have been following the Dionysian table during this time. More importantly, the Iona familia had split into two camps: those who supported Adomnán and the Dionysian table and those who believed that the Celtic-84 was the correct table. In addition, there are a number of church foundations in this period that may point to new Columban communities in Pictland that used Roman practices from the start. During a period of internal political strife, Nechtan did not need a Church separated between Roman and Celtic factions. Just as Oswiu called the Synod of Whitby for political reasons and to secure ecclesiastical unity, Nechtan may have seen the need for both a political alliance and a unified Church. It appears likely that Nechtan wrote to Jarrow after his defeat in 711 by a Northumbrian lord. The Celtic-84 and Dionysian tables during this period were in agreement in 713 and would not be so again until 743.


159

Adopting the Roman practices in 712 would have allowed extra time to ensure that all communities had copies of the new table by 714. Confirmation that the Celtic-84 was still used by portions of the Pictish Church comes from Bede. He states that before Nechtan wrote to Ceolfrid, the king had already made the decision to follow the Dionysian table. The problem was that he was having trouble convincing some of the correctness of this decision. If this is true, Bede would be right in asserting that Nechtan needed additional arguments to win over the Celtic-84 supporters. Of course, Nechtan could have written to Ireland, Canterbury or any number of places for this information. The fact that he wrote to Ceolfrid supports the theory that he needed a better relationship with Northumbria and to heal the breach within his Church.

Content of the Letter The letter opens by stating that there are three rules found in the Scriptures for determining the date of Easter: first, that Passover occurs in the first month; second, that the Feast of Unleavened Bread should happen in the third week (luna 15–21); and third, that the Resurrection occurred on a Sunday. Ceolfrid admits that the Old Testament refers to the fourteenth, but argues that those who believe Easter should be celebrated on luna 14 misunderstand God’s instructions. Exodus states that the Passover lamb is to be killed during the day on the fourteenth, but then eaten that evening when the fifteenth moon has risen (table 9.1). The Bible also states that the Feast of Unleavened Bread should occur from the fourteenth to twenty-first days of the month and then refers to this as seven, not eight days.56 The solution to the mystery is that the Feast should be celebrated from sundown on the fourteenth to sundown on the twenty-first—only seven, twenty-fourhour periods.57 Thus the third week, the week in which Easter must occur, begins with the rise of the fifteenth moon and continues to the evening of the twenty-first day.58 Thus Ceolfrid argued that those who follow a luna 14–20 dating as used in the Celtic-84 are in error because they celebrate Easter during the day of luna 14 if it falls on a Sunday. When they break the Lenten fast on Saturday Table 9.1 Ceolfrid’s description of Biblical dates Age of moon at sundown

14

15 Passover

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Day

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

160


evening, they are beginning their Easter celebration on the thirteenth day of the month. This day is never mentioned in the Scriptures and, in fact, is the last day of the second week. The Celtic-84 is also in error because it excludes luna 21, the last day of the third week, from its Easter cycle. This date is clearly mentioned in the Law and thus should not be ignored.59 Those who use the Victorian table have the opposite problem. By using a lunar range of 16–22, they ignore luna 15—a date clearly honored in the Law. By saying that Easter can fall as late as luna 22, they move Easter into the fourth week and celebrate on a date never mentioned in the Scriptures. Ceolfrid reminds the king that Easter must fall within the third week because they are living in the third age, the age of Grace. In addition, Christ rose from the dead on the third day, symbolizing the beginning of a new era.60 The letter next discusses the equinox and the fact that it occurs on March 21. In addition, the Paschal full moon must always occur on or after the equinox or Easter will fall in the wrong month. Ceolfrid argues that those who put the Paschal full moon before the equinox “agree with those who trust that they can be saved without the grace of Christ” in other words, the Pelagians.61 The Victorian table allowed luna 14 to occur as early as March 18 when there are more hours of darkness than light. Thus, this table symbolically denied the need for Christ’s death and resurrection. Having outlined the problems with the Celtic-84 and Victorian table, Ceolfrid moves the discussion to the tonsure. He states that this is not a salvation issue for “those whose faith in God is untainted and their love for neighbor sincere.”62 Though there are different tonsures used in the Church, the one worn by Peter is the best and that by Simon Magus is the worst. Peter’s hairstyle reminds believers that they are saved through Christ’s death on the cross. In addition, those who imitate Peter’s tonsure “show upon their crowns that they are ready to endure all kinds of ridicule and disgrace, gladly and readily” and are eagerly awaiting their heavenly crown.63 On the other hand, Ceolfrid states that Simon Magus’ tonsure is “fitting for simoniacs . . . for in this present life those whom they deceived thought they were worthy of the glory of the everlasting crown; but in the life to come they are not only deprived of any hope of a crown but moreover are condemned to eternal punishment.”64 True believers will utterly reject such a tonsure. Just in case the reader is unsure about who would wear Simon Magus’ tonsure, Ceolfrid relates a conversation between himself and Adomnán, where the Ionan abbot admitted that he wore Simon Magus’ tonsure, but he was not a simoniac. Ceolfrid chastises Adomnán that he should wear Peter’s tonsure as “a sign that you agree in your inmost heart with all that Peter stands for.”65 Thus Ceolfrid leaves the reader with the


161

question of why an abbot as holy and well respected as Adomnán would knowingly wear the symbol of the arch-heretic and Peter’s enemy. Due to the fact that Adomnán was so well respected in Pictland, Ceolfrid had to be somewhat diplomatic in condemning the Celtic tonsure. He does state that Adomnán was holy, prudent, humble, and a devoted servant of God.66 He also adds that those who use Simon Magus’ tonsure are not guilty if they uphold the unity of the Church. Therefore, Ceolfrid presents Adomnán as a holy man of God, who was not harmed by his tonsure because he had chosen to uphold the unity of the Church. For those who wore Simon Magus’ tonsure and used the heretical Celtic-84, things seem much less certain. At the end of the letter, Bede adds that upon hearing Ceolfrid’s words, Nechtan ordered his kingdom to adopt the Dionysian table and destroy all copies of the Celtic-84. He also had all clerics and monks wear the Roman tonsure. According to Bede, due to these changes “the reformed nation rejoiced to submit to the newly-found guidance of Peter, the most blessed chief of the apostles, and to be placed under his protection.”67

Summary Due to the Northumbrians and to Adomnán’s influence, Roman practices began to infiltrate the Pictish Church in the late seventh century. By c.710, it appears that the Church had divided into Roman and Celtic sides. Nechtan, facing external political pressure from Northumbria, internal rivals to the throne, and a divided Church, may well have decided that it was time for the crown to intervene in the Easter controversy. Thus, like Oswiu and the Synod of Whitby, political issues may have triggered the need for ecclesiastical unity. Bede indicates that Nechtan had already sided with the Roman party before writing to Ceolfrid, and simply needed additional information against the Celtic-84. This was provided in a letter written by Ceolfrid in c.712. The letter discussed the fact that the Celtic-84 misinterpreted the Old Testament and therefore listed dates that were too early. In addition, it explained that the Celtic tonsure was that of Simon Magus. Those who truly follow the universal Church should not wear the tonsure of the arch-heretic. As a result of Ceolfrid’s letter, Nechtan ordered abandonment of the Celtic practices in his kingdom in c.712 since the tables were in agreement in 713. Thus, as with Whitby, it appears that the Pictish Church fully adopted the Roman practices upon royal order. However, as will be discussed below, there may have been some communities that continued to use the Celtic-84 even after 713.

162


The letter to Nechtan is one of the more complex chapters in Bede’s History. It hints at changes and controversies within the Pictish Church but provides little explanation of these events. In addition, Bede decided to include the full text of Ceolfrid’s long letter rather than simply paraphrasing it. As such, it provides a detailed summary of the arguments against the Celtic and Victorian tables, and the Celtic tonsure near the very end of the History. It also continued Bede’s story of the move toward unity of practices within the churches of the British Isles.

Iona’s Adoption of the Dionysian Table According to Bede, Iona did not abandon the Celtic-84 until 716 and Irish annals record the adoption of the Roman tonsure in 718.68 A few years before this, Egbert, who was a priest and possibly a bishop, arrived at Iona. According to Bede, Egbert was an Anglo-Saxon who had decided to study in Ireland and joined the monastery of Rathmelsigi. In 664, as a plague swept the British Isles, he made a vow never to return to his homeland, to become an exile for Christ or peregrinus.69 If Bede is correct that he died in 729 at the age of ninety, he would have been about seventy-seven when he arrived at Iona. Bede credits Egbert with finally convincing Iona to adopt the Dionysian table, though he provides no details about why this decision was made. It is possible that a new generation of monks who did support the Roman traditions had come to power and so the changes were possible. It had been about twenty years since Adomnán decided to switch tables. In addition, Iona may have felt increasingly isolated. The Anglo-Saxon, Pictish, and Irish Churches had all stopped using the Celtic-84. In particular, the abandonment of the Celtic-84 by Pictland in c.712 may have increased the controversy at Iona itself. In fact, Kirby has argued that Iona may have adopted the Roman table not in 716, but 717 when Nechtan expelled the Columban monks from Pictland.70 Other issues surround the Easter tables. By 690, the Celtic-84 luna dates were five days off from the more accurate Dionysian table. A five-day difference in the cycle of the moon would be very visible. For instance in 716, the year Iona first used the Dionysian table, the Celtic-84 identified April 12 as luna 19. However, this date was actually luna 14. As the Celtic-84 departed farther from reality, this may also have undermined arguments that this table was correct.


163

The Celtic-84 and Dionysian tables were also contradicting more often. For instance in the 680s when Adomnán and Armagh changed to the Roman dating, the tables were in agreement four times. On the other hand, between 714 and 743 the tables never agreed. As can be seen in table 9.2, in the years just before and after Iona decided to adopt the Dionysian table, the two tables listed Easter dates three weeks apart in 715, 718, and 720. If Iona was divided between pro-Roman and pro-Celtic parties, this, coupled with the Pictish decision and the increasingly visible errors in the Celtic-84, might have brought matters to a head. There is one annalistic entry possibly indicating that controversy continued within the Columban family even after 716. The Annals of Ulster report in 717 on the “expulsion of the community of [Iona] beyond the Dorsum Brittaniae by king Nechtan.”71 As usual, no additional commentary or explanation is included. No historical documents outside of the annals mention this event leaving historians unable to determine with certainty why Nechtan chose to exile some of the Columban communities. Some things can be said however. A few historians have pointed out that it is highly unlikely that Nechtan expelled everyone associated with the Table 9.2 Comparative Easter dates, 710–23 Year

Celtic-84 Easter

710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723

April 13 April 5 March 27 April 16 April 1 April 21 April 12 March 28 April 17 April 9 April 21 April 13 April 5 April 18

Luna 14 17 19 20 16 18 19 15 17 20 14 16 19 14

Dionysian Luna (Dionysian) 9 12 14 15 11 13 14 10 12 14 8 11 14 9

Easter April 20 April 12 April 3 April 16 April 8 March 31 April 19 April 4 March 27 April 16 March 31 April 20 April 12 March 28

Luna 16 19 21 15 18 21 21 17 20 21 16 18 21 17

Luna (Celtic-84) 21 24 26 20 23 26 26 22 25 27 22 23 26 22

Note: Bold⫽tables in agreement. Source: Celtic-84 Easter and luna dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19, modernized and cycled by C. Corning; Dionysian Easter and luna dates calculated using Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion, pp. 821–22; alternative luna dates and all adjustments by C. Corning.

164


Columban houses.72 First, Bede makes no mention of this event that would certainly have been of interest. Also, there is no evidence that the Pictish Church suddenly needed to replace most of its clergy. It is interesting to speculate on the fact that place-name evidence may demonstrate that a number of Pictish communities were founded in Adomnán’s honor.73 It can be imagined that those who supported the Dionysian table would have wanted to remember the abbot who first brought about this change. In addition, this event should not be seen as involving Pictish nationalism since it is doubtful that Nechtan would have viewed the Columban monks as representatives of Dál Ríata or a foreign element in his Church.74 Those associated with Iona had been active in Pictland since the late sixth or early seventh century and many of the monks in these communities would have been Pictish. While there were battles between Dál Ríata and Pictland especially in the 740s, Iona’s ties to both kingdoms appear to have continued. Other historians have argued that Nechtan’s decision rested on secular political considerations. For instance, the Columban familia may have chosen to support one of his rivals to the throne. By expelling the churchmen who opposed him, he could replace them with more loyal followers, thus extending royal authority.75 While secular politics were probably involved, it seems possible that the Easter controversy may have contributed to this event. It is highly likely that some communities in Pictland may have resisted changing tables.76 Given that Nechtan was trying to unify the Church in a time of political uncertainty, he could have remained in negotiation with these communities, hoping to convince them to abandon the Celtic practices. The tables were in agreement in 713, so the problem would not have been truly evident until 714. As the controversy dragged on into 717, Nechtan may have given up all hope and simply expelled those who would not come into conformity with the rest of the Pictish Church and Iona. It is even possible that pro-Roman factions within Pictland encouraged the exile of those who would not use the “correct” Easter table. However, all of this must remain in the realm of speculation. There is no evidence to help historians elucidate the political and ecclesiastical maneuvering of this period.

The British Church By the 730s, there were only a few regions still using the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure. Most of the British kingdoms in the north were under Northumbrian domination and thus presumably were using the Dionysian table.77 Strathclyde alone remained independent, though Eadberht of


165

Northumbria attacked Kyle in c.750. In the south, the West Saxons expanded into British territory and by the early eighth century controlled Devon.78 Mercia also conquered land at the expense of the neighboring British kingdoms in this period. Thus very little, if any, territory outside of modern-day Wales and Cornwall remained under British control by the early part of the eighth century.79 After 731, the sources are silent with regard to the British Church and the Easter controversy until 768 when the Welsh Annals records that Elfoddw converted the churches under his authority to the Roman Easter.80 This document lists an Elfoddw as Archbishop of Gwynedd in 809 and it is possible that this is the same man.81 The Brut Y Tywysogyon or the Chronicle of the Princes reports that in 770, “the Easter of the Britons was changed by command of Elfodd, a man of God.”82 These entries raise a number of questions. First, it is not possible to determine which Britons made the switch to the Dionysian table in 768. Some British areas had switched tables even before being incorporated into Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Bede, for instance, reports that some of those in Devon abandoned the Celtic-84 in c.680 after Aldhelm wrote to their king.83 There is no evidence about which table Strathclyde or Cornwall used in this period. Also unknown is whether this statement is referring to all of the Welsh kingdoms or strictly Gwynedd, if Elfoddw was even bishop there. Davies has theorized that in c.768, Elfoddw may have overseen a council called to determine the correct date of Easter.84 If so, this would resemble what occurred in Merovingian Gaul, Ireland, and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in attempting to solve the Easter controversy. Whether or not secular political leaders were involved in this as with Oswiu at the Synod of Whitby is unknown. It is also impossible to determine if this council would have included churchmen from throughout the Welsh kingdoms. Unfortunately, the primary material for this period is so fragmentary that historians cannot determine why change occurred at this time.85 Certainly as more kingdoms adopted Roman practices, combined with the expansion of the West Saxons, Mercia, and Northumbria, the Church in Wales may have become increasingly isolated. In addition, it is also possible that the mid- to late eighth century was one of political and ecclesiastical centralization in Wales, alongside an integration of continental practices into the Church.86 If this is correct, then there may have been pressure to conform to the Roman table. However, there must have been an event or series of events that forced the issue in 768. Looking at the Celtic-84 table, there are some clues as to why the Easter controversy might have reached a crisis in the late 760s. First, the table was to begin a new cycle in 774. Second, the Celtic-84’s luna dates were six days ahead of the dates listed in the Dionysian table. In 767, the Celtic table

166


identified April 12 as luna 14, but the more accurate Dionysian would have calculated this as luna 8. Looking at the moon, an error of one or two days is not that visually noticeable, but there is a significant difference between luna 8 and luna 14 (table 1.1). This deviation in luna dates meant that each table listed dates that were unacceptable to the other side (table 9.3). For instance in 768, the Celtic-84 listed Easter as occurring on April 3 and identified this as luna 16. The Dionysian table should have had no problems with this date, except that according to this table, April 3 was luna 10 and therefore not appropriate at all. The same problem happened in reverse. The Dionysian table identified April 10 as Easter in 768 calculating it as luna 17. This luna date should have worked for the Celtic-84, except that the Celtic table would have listed April 10 as luna 23 and therefore outside the bounds of all Easter tables. The fact that the Celtic-84 and Dionysian table listed luna dates that varied by six days meant that the tables never agreed again. While in the early seventh century, the two tables listed identical dates every few years, between 700 and 770, the tables placed Easter on the same date only in 709, 713, and 743. Thus by 768, the Celtic-84 was clearly in error. Visually all could see that the luna dates listed in the Dionysian table were significantly more accurate than those in the Celtic-84. As the Celtic table moved further out of sequence with reality, the tables rarely if ever agreed. While it is impossible to know what secular or political circumstances might have led some of the British to adopt the Dionysian table in 768, the increasing problems with the Celtic-84 and the limited number of those still using this table easily could have contributed to whatever controversy or political maneuvering may have been occurring within the Welsh Church of the mid-eighth century. Table 9.3 Comparative Easter dates, 765–70 Year

Celtic-84 Easter

765 766 767 768 769 770

April 7 March 30 April 12 April 3 March 26 April 15

Dionysian Table

Luna

Luna (Dionysian)

17 20 14 16 19 20

11 14 8 10 13 14

Easter April 14 April 6 April 19 April 10 April 2 April 22

Luna

Luna (Celtic)

18 21 15 17 20 21

24 27 21 23 26 27

Source: Celtic-84 Easter and luna dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19, modernized and cycled by C. Corning; Dionysian Easter and luna dates calculated using Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion, pp. 821–22; alternative luna dates and all adjustments by C. Corning.


167

Welsh Church Organization As a branch of the Celtic Church, historians once assumed that by the seventh century the Welsh Church transformed from an episcopal model to one dominated by abbots who controlled large, geographically dispersed territories. As the abbots became more powerful, they displaced the bishops who eventually exercised only nominal authority within the Church structure. This theory was supported by the monastic terminology that was prominent in the surviving documents.87 However, just as with Ireland, historians have reassessed the idea that the Welsh Church was primarily monastic in the early Middle Ages.88 Historians highlight that in the primary sources monastic language is often applied in nonmonastic situations. For instance a “monk” could be someone under vows, but also a tenant who farmed ecclesiastical land. A monasterium could refer to an ecclesiastical community headed by a bishop and comprised of clerics, deacons, and others; none of whom fit the classical definition of a monk.89 In addition, rather than disappearing from the records, bishops were designated as important political figures who ruled geographically defined dioceses. The Welsh Annals refer to Elfoddw as Archbishop of Gwynedd.90 Asser’s Life of Alfred mentions an Archbishop Nobis, possibly of St. David’s.91 A recent article has pointed out that the text known as the “Seven Bishop Houses of Dyfed” may indicate not only that St. David’s had authority over six lesser bishops, but the existence of nonclerical church managers as well since two of these men were not required to be in clerical orders.92 While these references to episcopal authority once would have been dismissed as anachronistic, historians now believe they may well reflect reality. Therefore, unlike the more popular notions of a church headed by holy abbots, the organization of the Welsh Church appears to have been quite similar to the rest of Western Europe. It is difficult to determine if the Welsh had a system of ecclesiastical ranks similar to that in Ireland where the heads of the major churches, scholars, and anchorites were regarded as equal in status to the bishop of a small kingdom.93 Decisions from two possible sixth-century councils, the Synod of North Britain and the Synod of the Grove of Victory survive, but there is no indication of who actually attended these meetings.94 One decision from the Synod of North Britain assigns the same penance for an abbot as for a bishop and also indicates that a doctores or a teacher/scholar might assign penances, but this evidence is inconclusive.95 There is also the information provided by Bede that Augustine met with British bishops and scholars.96 This may indicate that, as in Ireland, scholars had a rank equal to that of bishops so they were entitled to attend church councils. However,

168


Bede also mentions that scholars attended the Anglo-Saxon Council of Hertford.97 Therefore, the Augustine narrative does not demonstrate conclusively the status of scholars in the British or more specifically Welsh Church.

Conclusion While it is not possible to know the exact dates that all the British kingdoms abandoned the Celtic-84, it does seem that by 768, the “Easter controversy” was basically resolved for the churches in the British Isles. The Picts had adopted the Dionysian table, followed shortly thereafter by Iona and its associated churches. The period from 718 to 770 would have seen the British Church increasingly isolated and adhering to a table that was clearly in error. As discussed, the sources for the abandonment of the Celtic-84 by these three groups are extremely difficult and vague. Much of the information needed to truly understand all of the political and ecclesiastical motives of those involved in the controversy are simply not available to historians. This is especially true for the British Church in the eighth century. As the controversy of Easter continued throughout the seventh and into the eighth century, it is possible that some groups saw the use of the Celtic-84 as a vital part of their identity. For Iona, support for the Celtic-84 became equated with support for Columba. Thus Adomnán and those advocating the Dionysian table had to prove that it was possible to honor Columba and promote Iona while discarding the Celtic-84. The British as well may have used the Celtic-84 as an identifiable distinctive that set them apart from their Anglo-Saxon, Irish, and Pictish neighbors.98 However, by the mid-eighth century, as the problems with the Celtic-84 became even more obvious, many British churchmen must have come to the conclusion that it was time to abandon this table and come into conformity with most of the rest of the Church in Western Europe. If it is correct that the churches in Wales were looking increasingly at continental models and thus entering a period of innovation rather than conservatism, then continued support of the Celtic-84 would have made little sense in this environment.

Chapter 10 Conclusion

By the end of the eighth century, the Easter controversy between the Celtic and Roman traditions had been resolved. During this same period, the Carolingian kingdom also abandoned the Victorian table.1 This meant that Western Europe was united in following the principles of the Dionysian table. Also by this time, the practice of tariff penance was gaining in popularity, and the British, Irish, Frankish, and Anglo-Saxon peregrini were transforming Europe.

Easter This study has argued throughout that the Easter controversy was a very important issue in the medieval Church. If the dates for Easter varied by one month, as they did in 612, then the ecclesiastical calendars would disagree for eighteen weeks. This would have been especially difficult when some were still observing the Lenten fast and others had already celebrated Easter. However, even more than the practical difficulties, it was the theological issues involved in the Easter controversy that were most worrisome. In so many ways the tables could symbolically violate the core of the Easter message: Christ’s death and resurrection and the resultant salvation. Any aspect that created a “dark” Easter was to be rejected. To celebrate Easter before the equinox, before the new year, before or after the third week, too early or too late in the moon’s cycle all violated the symbolic importance of Easter. As the controversy continued through the seventh century and into the eighth, deviation in Easter practices became a heretical issue.2

170


It is fortunate that surviving documents present the arguments used to support each of the three main Easter tables. Columbanus’ letter to Pope Gregory discusses the problems with the Victorian table, but also justifies the use of the Celtic-84. Cummian’s letter condemns the use of the Celtic-84, but lays out a series of arguments for adopting the Victorian table. The letter by Ceolfrid to Nechtan, king of the Picts, and the description of the Synod of Whitby contained in Bede’s History clearly demonstrate why these men believed the Dionysian table was correct and detail the problems with both the Victorian and Celtic-84. While other documents also contain arguments for or against the different tables, these four are the most critical in summarizing their problems. Columbanus’ letters are especially valuable because so little was preserved that supported the Celtic-84. It is somewhat difficult to determine when those involved in the seventhcentury controversy began associating the different tables with heresy. In general, from the fourth century, Christians came to equate schismatic practices with heresy.3 Therefore, in many instances, “beliefs and practices that had been acceptable at an earlier time . . . became outdated and were then reckoned inadmissible and, finally, heretical.”4 The controversies over Easter dating from the late second century reflect this development. In his letter to Pope Gregory, Columbanus appears to have been careful not to explicitly state that those who used the Victorian table were heretics, but he does imply it. He includes a quote from Anatolius stating those who celebrate Easter on luna 21 or 22 do so at the peril of their souls. Near the end of his letter, he warns Gregory to think carefully before disregarding Jerome’s opinion of Anatolius because those who undermine the “authority of Jerome will be heretic or reprobate.”5 Within a decade of the composition of Columbanus’ letter to Gregory, Bishop Laurence of Canterbury reports that Dagán, an Irish bishop, refused to associate with Laurence and his compatriots.6 It is possible that Dagán saw the Anglo-Saxon bishops as heretics and was following synodical guidelines to withhold fellowship. Since the Irish Church and the members of the Gregorian mission would have agreed on all major theological tenets, Easter dating appears to be the only possible heretical issue between them. Certainly, Laurence appears to associate Dagán’s actions and the Easter controversy in his letter. It must be cautioned, however, that there is simply not enough evidence to prove conclusively that the date of Easter had become a heretical matter before the 620s. On the other hand, by the late 620s, the supporters of the Celtic-84 and the Victorian table perceived divergent Easter dates as a matter of heresy. In c.628, Pope Honorius denounced the “Quartodeciman error” in the Irish Church.7 Cummian includes the information in his letter that Ségéne, Abbot of Iona, had accused him of being a heretic for using Roman Easter

Conclusion

171

dating. He responds with a counter charge against Iona.8 In addition, John’s letter in 640 accused the Irish of creating a new variation of the Quartodeciman heresy by allowing Easter to be celebrated on luna 14. He associates either the Celtic or the Victorian Easter table with the Pelagian teachings in this same letter. After 640, the two sides polarized even more. Irish churchmen had to meet in “Roman” and “Irish” synods. Bede reports that by the 650s, some in Northumbria feared that they might lose their salvation using the wrong table.9 The Penitential of Theodore outlines numerous penances that were to be assigned to those who celebrated Easter at the incorrect time and those who interacted with these heretics.10 Aldhelm’s letter proves that some of the Welsh clergy refused to associate with their Anglo-Saxon brethren due to differences over Easter.11 Stephanus in the Life of Wilfrid followed the papal lead by identifying those who used the Celtic-84 as Quartodecimans. While the Easter controversy was a serious issue in and of itself, it also played a part in the ecclesiastical politics of this period. For Bobbio, obtaining the papal privilege from Honorius was probably contingent in part on their adoption of the Roman Easter table. Armagh may have decided to abandon the Celtic-84 because it undermined its claim to be the archbishopric of Ireland. For decades after the Synod of Whitby, Lindisfarne’s Celtic past may have been controversial due to Wilfrid and his association with Roman practices.

Bede and the History The Easter controversy is a major theme in Bede’s History. He chronicles the conflict from the meetings between Augustine and the British in c.600 to Iona’s adoption of the Dionysian table in 716. The History ends with the information that the British stubbornly still refuse to adopt Catholic practices. It is due in part to this that some of them have fallen under Anglo-Saxon control.12 Two of the longest chapters in this work are that of the Synod of Whitby and the letter from Abbot Ceolfrid to Nechtan.13 Each of these plays the vital role of explaining the problems with the Celtic-84 and Victorian tables and why the Dionysian alone should be used. Although the history of the Easter controversy was important to Bede, it is a topic that both helped and hindered his narrative goals. He could easily condemn the British who stubbornly refused to adopt Roman practices and who, he believed, had refused to convert the Anglo-Saxons. However, it was another matter when it came to those from Iona. Bede saw the contemporary Northumbrian churchmen as wealthy, powerful, and neglectful of their pastoral duties. The History was written as

172


a warning to and condemnation of the churchmen of his own day. In the History, he could create idealized monk-bishops who were humble and true to their pastoral calling. The problem was that these early bishops and monks from Iona all used the Celtic-84, something he could not support. He needed to both promote their virtues and explain their failings. Bede did this in part by telling the reader that Iona was so isolated—on the world’s edge—these holy men were unaware of the correct table. For Aidan, he states that either the bishop was unaware of the problem or could not change due to “public opinion.”14 He also clarifies that those who used the Celtic-84 were not Quartodecimans. As part of this, he also altered Pope Honorius’ letter eliminating the pope’s specific accusation of this heresy.15 While discussing the foundation of Iona in 565, Bede interrupts the chronological flow to relate that Iona did accept the Roman Easter in 716.16 Therefore the reader is aware from the very beginning that although for a time Iona was in error, it had since rejoined the Catholic fold. Using these different approaches Bede could condemn the use of the Celtic-84 and still present men like Aidan as wonderful pastoral models.

Tonsure As the Easter controversy continued, the tonsure came to be seen as a very visible sign of allegiance to either the Celtic or Roman party. There appears to have been no conflict over the tonsure during the first half of the seventh century. Both Columbanus and Bishop Laurence do not mention it in their letters. The papal letters from Honorius and John are also silent on the matter. The very fact that Jonas did mention the tonsure in the Life of Columbanus and provided no explanation for this practice is probably the clearest proof that it was not yet a divisive issue.17 On the continent, those who supported the Celtic-84 had abandoned this table by 630 and therefore, no seventh-century documents originating from the continental Churches mention the tonsure. It is only in the British Isles, where the controversy continued throughout the seventh and into the eighth century, that the tonsure came to symbolize adherence to a specific method of calculating Easter.18 Bede hints that the tonsure may have been an issue of dispute by the 660s as he states that it was one of the reasons the Synod of Whitby was called. However, when he presents the arguments at Whitby, he does not include those against the tonsure.19 The earliest reference to the Celtic tonsure as that of Simon Magus comes from Aldhelm writing in the 670s. This same theme is found in Ceolfrid’s letter to Nechtan in c.712.20 The Collectio

Conclusion

173

Canonum Hibernensis also equates the British tonsure with this heretic.21 Since much of the information in the Hibernensis cannot be specifically dated, it is impossible to know when these accusations arose in Ireland. These statements are attributed to the “Romans” so it can be assumed that it was during the midst of the Easter controversy in the seventh century. It is difficult to construct the Celtic side of this argument. Ceolfrid states in his letter that Adomnán admitted to knowing that he wore the tonsure of Simon Magus, explained that this was the traditional style in Ireland, and assured Ceolfrid of his condemnation of simony.22 However, it is impossible to believe that those who used the Celtic tonsure truly thought it was that of Simon Magus. It can be assumed that they would have defended their tonsure as a well-established tradition and denied any link to the arch-heretic.

Concepts of Authority Throughout the Easter controversy, each side had to appeal to a number of different authorities to justify their table. As far as can be reconstructed, both sides appealed to the Scriptures, Apostolic tradition, the Church fathers, and synodical decrees. They also recognized the symbolic need for the moon cycle to correlate to correct teaching. For those supporting the adoption of the Roman table, the example of Rome could also be cited, though this was usually done within an appeal to the wider church. For instance, Cummian claimed that the whole Church followed the rules established at Nicaea. This was proven by the fact that when the Irish delegation was in Rome, they had talked to a “Greek, a Hebrew, a Scythian and an Egyptian” who each testified that all the churches of the world used the same dating for Easter.23 In addition, at the Synod of Whitby, Wilfrid claimed that the Dionysian calculations were observed not only in Rome, but also in Italy, Gaul, Africa, Asia, Egypt, and Greece.24 Even Popes Honorius and John emphasized that those who supported celebrating Easter on luna 14 did so in violation of the traditions of the whole Church and the rulings of Nicaea.25 Irishmen on both sides of the controversy also appealed to Irish authorities for support. Columbanus argued that the Victorian table had been rejected by Irish scholars.26 Colmán claimed that Columba and his successors were too godly to have ever used a table that was incorrect. Due to this he pledged that he would always use the Celtic-84.27 On the other hand, Cummian chides Ségéne for using “the elders” as an excuse not to adopt the Roman table and adds that their saintly predecessors used the eighty-four

174


year cycle only because it was the best available at the time. Therefore the Victorian table should be adopted because “our predecessors enjoined . . . that we should adopt humbly without doubt better and more valid proofs proffered by the font of our baptism and wisdom and by the successors of the Lord’s Apostles.”28

Synods When the Easter controversy arose, those in Merovingian Gaul, Anglo-Saxon England, and Ireland met in regional councils to debate the issue.29 Though there is no specific evidence, it is possible that Nechtan, like Oswiu before him, used a church council as the medium through which to adopt Roman traditions in Pictland. It has been suggested that Elfoddw, who may have been bishop of Gwynedd, might have called a church council in 768 to discuss Easter as well.30 It appears that there were some differences in the composition and authority of councils in each region. In Anglo-Saxon England, Bede relates that it was only through the auspices of King Æthelfrith that Augustine was able to meet with the British bishops, but there is no sense in which he directed the meeting. At Whitby, King Oswiu played a prominent role; possibly calling the synod and being the one who made the decision that his kingdom would use the Dionysian table. In contrast, there appears to have been no royal involvement in the Council of Hertford called by Theodore in 673. However, this can be explained by the fact that Churchmen from throughout Anglo-Saxon England attended Hertford and thus it involved multiple kingdoms.31 In addition, bishops were the main participants in ecclesiastical synods, although others were at times present. Bede claims that at Whitby along with Bishops Agilbert and Colmán, there were James the deacon, Hild, abbess of Whitby, Wilfrid, and other priests. He also reports that at the Council of Hertford there were “teachers.” Though the names of the bishops who attended Hertford were preserved, the scholars do not appear to have signed the synodical documents. It is difficult to know what role, if any the priests, teachers and, in the case of Whitby, abbess and deacon might have played. While still a priest, Wilfrid did present the Roman arguments at Whitby, but this was only because Bishop Agilbert requested that he do so. In Merovingian Gaul, synods were usually comprised of bishops.32 It was not until the Carolingian Church that abbots regularly participated at church councils. At the Synod of Mâcon, in 626/27, the crown was to have been represented by the Burgundian maior though he died before the

Conclusion

175

proceedings began. While Columbanus gives no hint of royal interest in the Council of Chalon, Theuderic and Brunhild had arranged for the bishops to meet in order to exile Desiderius of Vienne.33 There are also records of many church councils throughout the seventh and early eighth centuries that testify that royal involvement was the norm. In Ireland, kings appear to have participated at ecclesiastical synods only when a cáin or law was to be issued, such at that at Birr in 697, where the recognition of secular authority was needed for implementation. While the canons discuss synods at the provincial level that may equate with the greater kingdoms, kings did not claim the same type of authority as did Oswiu at Whitby. This seems to have been especially true when matters of ecclesiastical discipline were the focus.34 In Ireland, church councils were comprised of those holding the highest ecclesiastical status. This included not only bishops, but scholars, anchorites, and the heads of the major churches.35 Since abbots were often the leaders of important churches and familiae, they attended councils as representatives of these ecclesiastical networks.36 When the Easter controversy was not resolved in the 630s, it appears that the Church began meeting in synods comprised only of those who supported the Roman table (Romani) or those who continued to employ the Celtic-84 (Hibernenses). However, all evidence points to the fact that the synods of both these groups would have been comprised of bishops, abbots, and scholars. As for the British Church, when discussing the meetings between Augustine and the British bishops, Bede mentions the presence of scholars from the monastery of Bangor-is-Coed, but provides no information on their role at the meeting.37 Therefore it is difficult to determine if their standing mirrored that in the Irish Church or whether it was closer to the Anglo-Saxon model where scholars attended councils but did not sign the decrees. It is also interesting to note that while the British churchmen consulted a hermit, Bede implies that this man did not actually attend the meetings with Augustine. This would seem to differ from the Irish Church where anchorites did attend church councils. There also is no indication that abbots were present at these meetings. Outside of the History there are no surviving records of any synods from the early seventh to mid-eighth century and saints’ Lives do not provide information on the composition of synods in British kingdoms. It is not known if kings called or attended church councils. Also unclear is whether or not abbots headed parochiae equivalent to the paruchiae in Ireland. In Welsh sources, these areas of jurisdiction usually are associated with bishops.38 Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether abbots attended ecclesiastical synods in Britain, though initial evidence would seem to point in the negative.39

176


Papal Authority The conflict over Easter also evidences attitudes toward papal authority. The Irish honored the position of the pope as heir to Peter and recognized the role of the papacy as a court of appeals when agreement could not be reached at the local level. Columbanus wrote to the papacy for support in the Easter controversy and advice for dealing with the Gallic bishops. The letter from Pope John in 640 indicates that a regional council had consulted the papacy on the Easter question and while Cummian’s letter does not specify that the southern Irish delegation actually spoke with the papacy, they did travel to Rome to confirm which Easter table was in use. In addition, rejection of the Roman table should not be seen as a denial of papal authority. It was not unheard of in the seventh century for papal advice and decrees to be ignored. For instance, Pope Gregory continually wrote to the Merovingian secular and ecclesiastical leadership to call a council to deal with the problem of simony, but this was not done.40 In Anglo-Saxon England, King Ecgfrith and by implication Archbishop Theodore, ignored a papal ruling to restore Wilfrid to his see. However, this is complicated by Stephanus’ information that the king accused Wilfrid of obtaining the decree through bribery and thus it was invalid.41 Similar to other parts of the Western Church, Columbanus believed that Rome was the font of true doctrine.42 Due to this, he was concerned that if the pope had fallen into error over the Three Chapters, it would infect the whole of the Church. If the pope was supporting heretics it was the obligation of his subordinates to call him to task. It is important to remember that in response to the Three Chapters controversy, some of the churches in northern Italy and North Africa had broken communion with the papacy.43

Summary Throughout the Easter controversy, all sides were appealing to a number of different authorities: the Scriptures, the Church fathers, and synodical decrees. Each side warned the other not to be so prideful as to dismiss these authorities and to humbly submit to the truth. The arguments presented at synods and through the surviving letters prove that both sides upheld the symbolism inherent with Easter calculation and the idea that by violating these precepts, their opponents had become heretics and placed their very salvation in doubt. Though supporters of the Celtic-84 and Victorian/Dionysian tables attended local synods, if an agreement could not be reached or if a king was not present to enforce the decision, delegations

Conclusion

177

were sent to Rome for judgment. Those, like Cummian, who already had decided that the Roman Easter table was correct, upheld the reports of those who had visited Rome or the papal letters as one more piece of evidence that their opponents should acknowledge. For many who had not been persuaded by the arguments to abandon the Celtic-84, Rome’s judgment in this matter was not enough to change their minds: the Scriptures, Anatolius, and Jerome had spoken. It can be assumed that those who remained undecided would have been most influenced by the reports from Rome. Thus all sides in the Easter controversy appealed to similar authorities while trying to persuade their opponents of the value of their ideas. In addition, it appears that the Irish and British Churches used much the same approach to dissent as did their compatriots in Anglo-Saxon England and the Continent: discussion followed by synods and then if needed delegations to Rome. The only major difference may have been the presence or lack thereof of kings or abbots at the proceedings.

Penitentials and Peregrinatio During the midst of the Easter controversy, the Celtic penitentials began to influence the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish Churches. In the past, some argued that the Celts were the first to conceive of private penance and that they introduced this idea to the Continent. Scholars currently point out that the concept of private penance was already present in much of the Church by the sixth century and that throughout the early Middle Ages a combination of different types of penance remained the norm.44 While scholars debate if and in what ways the Celtic tradition may have popularized private penance, the Irish and the British penitentials were a critical piece in the developing doctrines of repentance and purgatory.45 The surviving evidence demonstrates that the British and then Irish churchmen began creating penitentials in the mid-sixth century that by the seventh were becoming increasingly complex. Columbanus’ Penitential, for instance, includes sections for monks, clerics, and the laity. By the eighth century, penitentials were also being produced in Anglo-Saxon England and on the Continent. However, the survival of eighth through eleventh-century copies of Irish penitentials attests to their continuing use alongside newer examples.46 Although the concept of life as a pilgrimage toward God was present throughout Christian literature in this period, the “exile for God” seems to have been uniquely emphasized in the Celtic tradition. British peregrini may

178


have traveled to Cornwall, Brittany, and present-day southern Scotland and Ireland. The fact that there were some monastic communities identified as British in seventh-century Ireland points to continuing links.47 In addition, Irish ecclesiastics like Columbanus, Columba, and Fursey, along with others such as Dícuill, Killian, and Virgil, journeyed to Britain and the Continent from the sixth century onwards.48 The Franks and Anglo-Saxons appear to have been inspired by the Irish peregrini.49 For instance, Amandus, who was from Aquitaine, was involved in missions in Ghent and the area around Maastricht from the late 620s until his death in c.675. His Life clearly portrays him as a peregrinus pro Christo.50 Emmeran (d. c.690) and Corbinian (d. 730), also both Franks, traveled to Bavaria where they became bishops.51 These men settled in areas that were officially Christian, but probably were active in a combination of missions and pastoral care. As mentioned, Egbert (d. 729), an Anglo-Saxon peregrinus, was identified by Bede as the person who convinced Iona to abandon the Celtic-84.52 However, he also inspired a number of followers to undertake missionary journeys to the Continent. For example, he sent Willibrord (d. 739), a Northumbrian living in Ireland, to Frisia in 690.53 Willibrord gained the support of the Austrasian maior Pippin II and traveled to Rome for permission to preach. Eventually, he became Archbishop of the Frisians with his see at Utrecht.54 It should be mentioned that it is difficult to determine whether all those who undertook missions or traveled for study in the seventh or eighth century should be identified as peregrini. In addition, missionary impulses from other sectors might also have influenced the churchmen of the day. However, technically peregrini or not, it is probable that the Irish focus on peregrinatio pro Christo was one element in the mixture which inspired the missionary efforts of the seventh and eighth centuries.55

The Celtic Tradition It is appropriate to end this study with a short discussion of whether the Irish and British would have recognized themselves as belonging to a separate micro-Christendom within the totality of the Church. Certainly there is no mention of the “Celtic tradition” by this name in the early medieval documents, but lack of a specific term should not alone rule out this possibility. In his letter to the bishops at Chalon, Columbanus states, “let us see which be the more true tradition—yours, or that of your brethren in the West.” Soon after this he adds that “all the churches of the entire West

Conclusion

179

do not consider that the resurrection should take place before the passion, that is, Easter before the equinox, and they do not wait beyond the twentieth moon lest they should hold a sacrament of the New Testament without authority of the Old.”56 He also asks the bishops at Chalon to pray for him for “we are all joint members of one body, whether Franks, Britons or Irish or whatever our race may be.”57 In his letter, Cummian cautions Ségéne against arguing that only “the Irish and British alone know what is right.”58 In the same vein, he adds, “. . . you insignificant group of Britains and Irish who are almost at the end of the earth, and, if I may say so, but pimples on the face of the earth.”59 Cummian and Columbanus’ comments demonstrate that at least when it came to the Easter controversy from 590 to 630, the Irish were aware that the British used the Celtic-84 table as well. It has also been shown that there were very close ties between the British and Irish Churches in the fifth through the early seventh centuries. St. Patrick ministered to some of the Irish and it has been argued that at least portions of the late-fifth- and sixth-century Church were under the authority of British synods.60 There were also many British peregrini who traveled to Ireland and established monastic foundations before the end of the sixth century. A handful of these communities were still identified as British into the seventh.61 Columbanus’ Penitential clearly shows the influence of both Gildas and Finnian. He also specifically mentions both of these men by name in his letter to Pope Gregory. While there is some recognition of a shared tradition in c.600, it seems that this was less the case by the early eighth century.62 There were undoubtedly British clerics and monks in Ireland, though the existence of AngloSaxon communities should be noted as well. Some of the hagiography produced from the seventh through eleventh centuries does highlight supposed interactions between fifth- and sixth-century British and Irish saints.63 However, this does not necessarily demonstrate that the Welsh and Irish believed they belonged to a separate and identifiable Christian tradition in this later period. First, the fact that British churchmen are mentioned in the early Irish saints’ Lives may simply reflect the fact that there were Britons active in the Irish Church of the fifth through seventh centuries, rather than a sense of shared identity with the British Church of the early eighth. By the time that the later Lives were written the cults of many Irish and Welsh saints had become quite popular. An author could only bolster the claims of sanctity for his subject by demonstrating ties to Patrick, Samson, or David. In addition, it is also important to remember that these later Lives often reflect the political maneuvering of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.64 Whatever sense of unity existed between the Irish and British Churches in the early seventh century was probably fractured by the Easter controversy.65

180


The Collectio Canonum Hibernensis is clear that cases were not to be forwarded to Jews, heretics, or the British.66 It also states that the British tonsure was that of Simon Magus.67 Therefore to the compilers of the Hibernensis the British were the “other” on a par with Jews and heretics. Anglo-Saxon sources provide the information that some of the British were not willing to associate with those who used the Roman table.68 It is hard to have a shared identity when each side refuses to associate with the other. By the time that the Welsh finally abandoned the Celtic-84 table, links between the two traditions may have been very badly damaged. When it comes to historians identifying a Celtic micro-Christendom in terms of practices, things are also somewhat uncertain. In c.600, the Celtic tradition was identifiably different in its use of the Celtic-84, the Celtic tonsure, the use of penitentials, and its emphasis on undertaking an exile for Christ. By 768, these specific distinctives either had been abandoned or adopted in some sense by the wider Church. This makes it much more difficult to identify practices shared in common by the Irish and Welsh but not the rest of the Church. In addition, while historians used to argue that the Churches in the Celtic-speaking lands shared a unique ecclesiastical organization dominated by abbots and monastic paruchiae, this appears to be incorrect. A reassessment of both the Irish and Welsh Churches has shown that the monastic language is often misleading and in fact both were probably closer to their Continental counterparts than was previously believed. Additional research is needed to determine whether Irish and British have any shared characteristics that set them apart in this area. What can be said with certainty is that the popular notions of the Celtic Church bear little resemblance with the reality of the early medieval Irish and British Churches. Churches were led not by simple abbots untouched by politics or power. Instead, the ecclesiastical leadership, episcopal and monastic, was closely tied to the kings and aristocracy. In Ireland, where bishops and abbots controlled large ecclesiastical territories and federations of churches, they were intrinsically bound into the power structure. Penitential documents show that the Irish and British did not consider humanity as inherently good.69 In fact, all penitential writers emphasized the constant need for repentance and diligence in guarding against further sin. The secular and ecclesiastical law codes demonstrate that the Celts did not reject Church hierarchy. They had tiers of episcopal grades, respected Rome, and upheld and affirmed the major decisions of the ecumenical councils. The Easter controversy also reveals that the Irish and British recognized the importance of correct doctrines and that Easter was not “simply” a matter of practices where diversity was not only tolerated but also celebrated. Added to this, the Celts were not inherently more spiritual than the rest of Europe, locked away in dream-like visions separated from

Conclusion

181

time and cold reality. In the end, scholars may determine that even after the mid-eighth century, there were identifiable practices and concepts that set the churches in the Celtic-speaking regions apart from the wider early medieval Church, but it is clear that these will bear little similarity to the popular portrayal of the Celtic Church.

Appendix 1: Easter Dates

AD year Table year

Easter luna luna 14 Table year

Easter

26M 15A 30M 19A 11A 27M 15A 7A 30M 12A 3A 26M 15A 31M 19A 11A 27M 16A 7A 20A 12A 4A

17 18 14 16 18 14 14 17 20 14 16 19 20 16 17 19 16 17 19 14 16 19

23M 11A 30M 17A 7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 21M 9A 29M 16A 6A 25M 13A 2A 20A 10A 30M

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

luna

26M or 2A 15 or 22 15A 16 6A 18 29M 21 11 or 18A 15 or 22 3A 19 22A 19 7 or 14A 15 or 22 30M 18 19A 19 10A 21 26M 17 15A 18 7A 21 22M 16 11A 17 3A 20 23A 21 7A 16 30M 19 19A 20 4A 16

Dionysian Table luna 14 Table year Easter luna luna 14 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 29M 17A 6A 26M 14A 3A 23M 11A 31M 20M 8A 28M 16A 5A 25M 13A 2A

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

26M 15A 6A 29M 11A 3A 22A 14A 30M 19A 10A 26M 15A 7A 22M 11A 3A 23A 7A 30M 19A 4A

15 16 18 21 15 18 18 21 17 18 20 16 17 20 15 16 19 20 16 19 20 16

25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 18A 7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 21M 9A 29M 17A 5A 25M 13A 2A Continued

183

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 1 2 3 4 5 6

Victorian Table

Appendix

590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611

Celtic-84

Table year 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Victorian Table


Easter

23A 8A 31M 20A 4A 27M 16A 1A 20A 12A 28M 17A 8A 31M 13A 5A 27M 16A 1A 21A 12A 28M 17A

20 15 18 19 14 17 18 14 16 18 14 16 17 20 14 17 19 20 16 18 19 15 17

17A 7A 27A 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 18A 8A 28M 15A 5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 17A 7A 27M 14A

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

luna

26M 18 15A 19 31M 16 20A 17 11A 19 27M or 3A 15 or 22 16A 16 8A 19 30M 21 12 or 19A 15 or 22 4A 18 27M 21 15A 21 31M 17 20A 18 12A 21 27M 16 16A 17 8A 20 24M 16 12A 16 4A 20 24A 21

Dionysian Table luna 14 Table year Easter luna luna 14 22M 10A 29M 17A 6A 26M 14A 3A 23A 11A 31M 20M 8A 28M 16A 5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 29M 17A

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

26M 15A 31M 20A 11A 3A 16A 8A 30M 19A 4A 27M 15A 31M 20A 12A 27M 16A 8A 24M 12A 4A 24A

18 19 15 16 18 21 15 18 20 21 17 20 20 16 17 21 16 17 20 16 16 19 20

22M 10A 30M 18A 7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 21M 9A 29M 17A 5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 18A


612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634

Celtic-84

184

AD year

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

9A 21A 13A 5A 18A 9A 1A 21A 6A 28M 17A 2A 22A 13A 29M 18A 10A 1A 14A 6A 29M 17A 2A 22A 14A 29M

20 14 16 19 14 15 18 20 15 17 18 14 16 18 14 16 18 20 14 17 20 20 16 18 20 15

3A 21A 11A 31M 18A 8A 28M 15A 5A 25M 13A 2A 20A 9A 29M 16A 6A 26M 14A 3A 23M 11A 31M 18A 8A 28M

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

9A 17 31M 19 20A 20 5A 16 28M 19 16A 19 1 or 8A 15 or 22 24M 18 13A 20 4A 21 17 or 24A 15 or 22 9A 18 1A 21 20A 21 5A 17 28M 20 17A 21 1A 17 21A 18 13A 21 29M 17 17A 17 9A 20 25M 14 14A 17 5A 19

6A 26M 14A 3A 23M 11A 31M 20M 7A 28M 16A 5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 29M 17A 6A 26M 14A 3A 23M 11A 31M

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

9A 31M 20A 5A 28M 16A 8A 24M 13A 4A 24A 9A 1A 20A 5A 28M 17A 1A 21A 13A 29M 17A 9A 25M 14A 5A

16 18 19 15 18 18 21 17 18 20 21 18 21 21 17 20 21 16 17 20 16 16 19 15 16 18

7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 21M 9A 29M 17A 5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 18A 7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A

185

Continued

Appendix

635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660

Table year 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

Victorian Table


Easter

18A 10A 26M 14A 6A 19A 11A 2A 22A 7A 30M 18A 3A 26M 15A 30M 19A 11A 27M 15A 7A 30M 12A

28M 22 10A 14 2A 19 21A 19 6 or 13A 15 or 22

17 20 16 16 19 14 16 18 20 15 18 18 14 17 18 14 16 18 14 14 17 20 14

15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 19A 9A 29M 16A 6A 26M 14A 3A 23M 11A 30M 17A 7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A

102 103 104 105 106

luna

Dionysian Table luna 14 Table year Easter luna luna 14 20M 8A 28M 16A 5A

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

28M 10A 2A 21A 6A 29M 18A 9A 25M 14A 6A 25A 10A 2A 22A 6A 29M 18A 3A 25M 14A 30M 19A

21 15 18 18 15 18 19 21 17 18 21 21 17 20 21 16 19 20 16 18 19 15 16

21M 9A 29M 17A 5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 18A 7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 21M 9A 29M 17A


661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683

Celtic-84

186

AD year

3A 26M 15A 31M 19A 11A 27M 16A 7A 20A 12A 4A 23A 8A 31M 20A 4A 27M 16A 1A 20A 12A 28M 17A 8A 31M 13A

16 19 20 16 17 19 16 17 19 14 16 19 20 15 18 19 14 17 18 14 16 18 14 16 17 20 14

1A 21M 9A 29M 16A 6A 25M 13A 2A 20A 10A 30M 17A 7A 27A 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 18A 8A 28M 15A 5A 25M 13A

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

10A 26M 15A 7A 29M 11A 3A 23A 14A 30M 19A 11A 26M 15A 7A 23M 11A 3A 23A 8A 30M 19A 4A 27M 15A 31M 20A

19 15 16 19 21 15 18 19 21 17 18 21 16 17 20 16 16 19 20 17 19 20 16 19 19 15 16

5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 18A 7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 21M 9A 29M 17A 5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 18A Continued

187

79 80 81 82 83 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Appendix

684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710

Table year 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Victorian Table


Easter

5A 27M 16A 1A 21A 12A 28M 17A 9A 21A 13A 5A 18A 9A 1A 21A 6A 28M 17A 2A 22A 13A 29M

17 19 20 16 18 19 15 17 20 14 16 19 14 15 18 20 15 17 18 14 16 18 14

2A 22M 10A 30M 17A 7A 27M 14A 3A 21A 11A 31M 18A 8A 28M 15A 5A 25M 13A 2A 20A 9A 29M

luna

Dionysian Table luna 14 Table year Easter luna luna 14 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

12A 3A 16A 8A 31M 19A 4A 27M 16A 31M 20A 12A 28M 16A 8A 24M 13A 4A 24A 9A 1A 20A 5A

19 21 15 18 21 21 17 20 21 16 17 21 17 17 20 16 17 19 20 16 19 19 15

7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 21M 9A 29M 17A 5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 18A 7A 27M 15A 4A


711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733

Celtic-84

188

AD year

18A 10A 1A 14A 6A 29M 17A 2A 22A 14A 29M 18A 10A 26M 14A 6A 19A 11A 2A 22A 7A 30M 18A 3A 26M 15A 30M

16 18 20 14 17 20 20 16 18 20 15 17 20 16 16 19 14 16 18 20 15 18 18 14 17 18 14

16A 6A 26M 14A 3A 23M 11A 31M 8A 8A 28M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 19A 9A 29M 16A 6A 26M 14A 3A 23M 11A 30M

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

28M 17A 8A 24M 13A 5A 24A 9A 1A 14A 5A 28M 17A 2A 21A 13A 29M 18A 9A 25M 14A 6A 28M 10A 2A 22A 6A

18 19 21 17 18 21 21 18 21 15 17 20 21 17 17 20 16 17 19 15 16 19 21 15 18 19 15

24M 12A 1A 21M 9A 29M 17A 5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 18A 7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 21M 9A 29M 17A 5A Continued

189

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Appendix

734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760

Table year 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Victorian Table


Easter

19A 11A 27M 15A 7A 30M 12A 3A 26M 15A 31M 19A 11A

16 18 14 14 17 20 14 16 19 20 16 17 19

17A 7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A 1A 21M 9A 29M 16A 6A

luna

Dionysian Table luna 14 Table year Easter luna luna 14 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

29M 18A 3A 25M 14A 6A 19A 10A 2A 22A 7A 29M 18A

18 19 15 17 18 21 15 17 20 21 17 19 20

25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 18A 7A 27M 15A 4A 24M 12A

Sources: Celtic-84 dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19. Dates modernized, CE dating and luna 14 dates by C. Corning. Victorian Easter dates calculated from Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year, p. 822 and modified according to Jones, “The Victorian and Dionysiac Paschal Tables,” p. 411. Victorian luna 14 dates calculated from Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year, p. 821, modified by C. Corning. Victorian luna dates on Easter calculated by C. Corning. Dionysian Easter dates calculated from Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year, p. 822. Dionysian luna 14 dates calculated from Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year, p. 821. Dionysian luna dates on Easter calculated by C. Corning.


761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773

Celtic-84

190

AD year

Notes

NOTES TO PAGES: xv, 1–2

Preface 1. Kathleen Hughes, “The Celtic Church: Is This a Valid Concept,” CMCS 1 (1981), pp. 1–20.

Chapter 1 1. See, for example, Deborah Cronin, Holy Ground: Celtic Christian Spirituality (Nashville, TN: Upper Room Books, 1999); Edward Sellner, The Wisdom of the Celtic Saints (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1993); Graydon Snyder, Irish Jesus, Roman Jesus (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002). 2. Thomas Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 241–48; Colmán Etchingham, Church Organisation in Ireland (Maynooth: Laigin Publications, 1999); Colmán Etchingham and Catherine Swift, “Early Irish Church Organisation,” Breifne 9 (2001): 285–312. See also chapter 6. 3. Christina Harrington, Women in a Celtic Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 1–19; Gilbert Márkus, “Iona: Monks, Pastors and Missionaries,” in Spes Scotorum: Hope of the Scots, edited by Dauvit Broun and Thomas Clancy (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), pp. 115–38. 4. The idea of local theologies is explored in Thomas O’Loughlin, “ ‘A Celtic Theology’: Some Awkward Questions and Observations,” in Identifying the “Celtic,” edited by Joseph Falaky Nagy (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002), pp. 59–65. For a discussion of micro-Christendoms, see Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), esp. pp. 355–79. 5. O’Loughlin identifies three versions of the “distinction equals opposition” theory and its influence on Celtic studies in O’Loughlin, “ ‘A Celtic Theology,’ ” pp. 55–58. 6. An excellent history of the modern “Celtic Church” phenomena is Donald Meek, The Quest for Celtic Christianity (Millfield: Handsel Press, 2000). A shorter summary can be found in Thomas O’Loughlin, Celtic Theology (London: Continuum, 2000), pp. 1–23. For a survey of the development of the idea of “Celtic Christianity” from the Middle Ages to present, see Ian Bradley, Celtic Christianity: Making Myths and Chasing Dreams (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999).

192 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16.

17.

18. 19. 20. 21.

22.

23. 24. 25. 26.

27.

28. 29. 30.

Notes to Pages 2–7 O’Loughlin, Celtic Theology, pp. 5–6. Meek, The Quest, pp. 110–15. Ibid., pp. 38–43, 50–57. Patrick Sims-Williams, “The Visionary Celt: The Construction of an Ethnic Preconception,” CMCS 11 (1986): 1–35. Meek, The Quest, p. 50; Sims-Williams, “The Visionary Celt,” p. 72. For instance, see Snyder, Irish Jesus, Roman Jesus. Meek, The Quest, pp. 238–41. Oliver Davies, “Celtic Christianity: Texts and Representations,” in Celts and Christians, edited by Mark Atherton (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2002), pp. 23–38. Harrington, Women, pp. 9–16. For an analysis of modern interpretations of Columba, see Donald Meek, “Between Faith and Folklore: Twentieth-Century Interpretations and Images of Columba,” in Broun and Clancy, Spes Scotorum, pp. 253–70. One of the first to clearly argue for this was Wendy Davies, “The Myth of the Celtic Church,” in The Early Church in Wales and the West, edited by Nancy Edwards and Alan Lane (Oxford: Oxbow Press, 1992), pp. 12–21. Patrick Sims-Williams, “Celtomania and Celtoscepticism,” CMCS 36 (1998): 1–35. See chapter 2. For issues on determining the date of the equinox, see Kenneth Harrison, “Easter Cycles and the Equinox in the British Isles,” ASE 7 (1978): 1–8. Duncan Steel, Marking Time: The Epic Quest to Invent the Perfect Calendar (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000). A more detailed summary of the issues involved is in Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 391–415. See also Faith Wallis, Bede: Reckoning of Time (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), pp. xxxiv–lxiii. The Julian calendar is associated with the calendar reforms of Julius Caesar. In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII ordered calendar reform initiating what is known as the Gregorian calendar. Steel, Marking Time, p. 159. Jane Stevenson, The “Laterculus Malalianus” and the School of Archbishop Theodore (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 168–69. See Luke 1:26–38. Wesley Stevens, “Cycles of Time: Calendrical and Astronomical Reckonings in Early Science,” in Cycles of Time and Scientific Learning in Medieval Europe, edited by Wesley Stevens, vol. I (Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum, 1995), pp. 27–51, at 39. For a short summary, see Bonnie Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Stevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 791–97. Dionysius is also known for inventing the AD dating system. Georges Declercq, Anno Domini: The Origins of the Christian Era (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000). Steel, Marking Time, pp. 106–07. Kenneth Harrison, “Episodes in the History of Easter Cycles in Ireland,” in Ireland in Early Mediaeval Europe, edited by Dorothy Whitelock et al. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 307–19, at 311–13.

Notes to Pages 7–10

193

31. Wallis, Bede, pp. l–liii. 32. Stevens, “Cycles of Time,” p. 40. 33. Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “ ‘New Heresy for Old’: Pelagianism in Ireland and the Papal Letter of 640,” Speculum 60, no. 3 (1985): 505–16, at 508–11. Like Dionysius, Victorius used the Alexandrian nineteen-year cycle as the basis of his table. However, every nineteen years it is necessary to insert a saltus lunae or moon’s leap, like a leap year, to advance the age of the moon by one. For an unexplained reason, Victorius placed this after the sixth year rather than the nineteenth. This meant that for years seven to nineteen out of every nineteenyear cycle, the Victorian table listed luna dates one day in advance of those in the Dionysian. 34. Charles Jones, “The Victorian and Dionysiac Paschal Tables in the West,” Speculum 9, no. 4 (1934): 408–21. 35. Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, trans. Lewis Thorpe (London: Penguin, 1974), 10.23. 36. This table is also referred to as the Latercus, the technical name used by some authors in the early Middle Ages. Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion, p. 870. However this book will simply use the term “Celtic-84.” 37. Daniel McCarthy, “The Origin of the Latercus Paschal Cycle of the Insular Celtic Churches,” CMCS 28, no. 2 (1994): 25–49. 38. Daniel McCarthy and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “The ‘Lost’ Irish 84-Year Easter Table Rediscovered,” Peritia 6–7 (1987/88): 227–42. Corrections to the table can be found in Daniel McCarthy, “Easter Principles and a Fifth-Century Lunar Cycle Used in the British Isles,” Journal of the History of Astronomy 24, no. 3 (1993): 204–24. 39. McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” p. 209. 40. Holy Week begins the Sunday before Easter when Palm Sunday is observed, followed by Maudy Thursday and Good Friday. 41. For liturgical fasts and feasts by the seventh century, see Yitzhak Hen, Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul, A.D. 481–751 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 61–81. 42. Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (HE), edited by Judith McClure and Roger Colins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 3.25. 43. World Council of Churches, Aleppo Statement (1997); available from http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/easter.html. 44. Matt. 27:32–28:10; Mark 15:21–16:8; John 19:16–20:18. 45. Matt. 5:17, 1 Cor. 5:7. 46. Exod. 12:1–20. 47. Augustine, Epistle to Januarius (55), in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff, First Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), pp. 303–16. 48. It should also be noted that the date for Pentecost needs to reflect Old Testament events. Fifty days after Passover, the Law was given to the Hebrews. Fifty days after Easter, the Holy Spirit was given to the Christians. 49. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 396–405. 50. Exod. 12:18; Lev. 23:5–6. 51. Deut. 16:2–3.

194


52. Throughout this book, the traditional definition of the equinox as a day on which there are equal amounts of daylight and darkness will be used, even though modern astronomers would disagree with this description. Steel, Marking Time, pp. 371–74. 53. Bede, Reckoning, 64, 152. All Reckoning of Time quotes from the Faith Willis edition. 54. Ibid. 55. Ibid., p. 153. 56. Augustine, Ep. to Januarius, 4–5. 57. This can occur either in March or April depending on the dating of the full moon after the equinox. 58. Augustine, Ep. to Januarius, 3. 59. Ibid. 60. Bede, HE, 3.25, 5.19. 61. Bede, Reckoning, 6. 62. Eusebius, Life of Constantine, in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Second Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952; reprint, 1961), 3.18–19; Wallis, Bede, pp. xxxvii–xxxix. 63. Harrison, “Easter Cycles,” 4. 64. Wallis, Bede, pp. xxxviii–xxxix. 65. Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.18–20, p. 525. 66. Augustine, Ep. to Januarius, 27. 67. For a general discussion on hair and tonsures, see Edward James, “Bede and the Tonsure Question,” Peritia 3 (1984): 85–98; Daniel McCarthy, “On the Shape of the Insular Tonsure,” Celtica 24 (2003): 140–67; Sayers, “Early Irish Attitudes towards Hair and Beards, Baldness and Tonsure,” Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 44 (1991): 154–89. For comparison, a discussion of the tonsure question in Spain can be found in Alberto Ferreiro, “A Reconsideration of the Celtic Tonsure and the Ecclesia Britoniensis in the Hispano RomanVisigothic Councils,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 23 (1991): 1–10. For a brief overview of symbolism of haircuts in the early medieval period, see Simon Coates, “Scissors or Sword: The Symbolism of a Medieval Haircut,” History Today 49, no. 5 (1999): 7–13. 68. The best known might be the “long-haired” Merovingian kings, but there is evidence that other cultures also used long hair as a sign of high social status. Sayers, “Early Irish Attitudes,” pp. 164–73. 69. James, “Bede,” p. 89. 70. Bede, HE, 5.21. This letter is discussed in chapter 9. 71. Ibid., p. 284. 72. McCarthy, “On the Shape,” pp. 152–61. 73. Acts 8:9–24. 74. See J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), pp. 390–426, 431–38. 75. Alberto Ferreiro, “Simon Magus: The Patristic Medieval Traditions and Historiography,” Apocrypha 7 (1996): 29–38. See also Alberto Ferreiro, “Sexual


76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

81.

82. 83. 84.

85.

86.

87. 88. 89.

195

Depravity, Doctrinal Error, and Character Assassination in the Fourth Century: Jerome against the Priscillianists,” Studia Patristica 28 (1993): 29–38. Gregory, History, 1.24, p. 84. Bede, HE, 5.21, p. 283. All HE quotes from the McClure and Collins edition. James, “Bede,” pp. 96–98. See Heb. 6:4–6, James 5:15–16 and 1 Cor. 5 for example. Peter Brown, “The Decline of the Empire of God: Amnesty, Penance, and the Afterlife from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages,” in Last Things: Death and the Apocalypse in the Middle Ages, edited by Caroline Walker Bynum and Paul Freedman (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), pp. 41–59, at 41–42. Mayke de Jong, “Transformations of Penance,” in Rituals of Power from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, edited by Frans Theuws and Janet Nelson (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 203–05. Thomas O’Loughlin, “Penitentials and Pastoral Care,” in A History of Pastoral Care, edited by G. R. Evans (London: Cassell, 2000), pp. 94–95. O’Loughlin, Celtic Theology, pp. 53–54. de Jong, “Transformations,” pp. 207–08. There is some disagreement over the term “private penance.” Although a public ritual was no longer performed, the very nature of some of the assigned penances, fasting, giving alms, etc., would have brought the sinner to public notice. Meens has argued that the term implies there was no communal aspect to the act of penance. He instead favors the term “secret penance,” though it seems as though this could also lead to unintended assumptions by modern readers. Rob Meens, “Frequency and Nature of Early Medieval Penance,” in Handling Sin: Confession in the Middle Ages, edited by Peter Biller and Alastair Minnis (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 1998), pp. 47–52. John McNeill and Helena Gamer, eds., Medieval Handbooks of Penance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938; reprint, 1990), pp. 86–97, 174–78. There is a debate among scholars as to whether Finnian was Irish or a British monk who immigrated to Ireland. The arguments can be found in Thomas Charles-Edwards, “Britons in Ireland, c.550–800,” in Ildánach Ildírech, edited by John Carey, John Koch, and Pierre-Yves Lambert (Andover: Celtic Studies Publications, 1999), pp. 14–26, at 17–19; David N. Dumville, “St. Finnian of Movilla: Briton, Gael, Ghost?” in Down: History and Society, edited by L. Proudfoot (Dublin: Geography Publications, 1997), pp. 71–84; Pádraig Ó Riain, “Finnio and Winniau: A Return to the Subject,” in Carey et al., Ildánach Ildírech, pp. 188–201. Columbanus, “Paenitentiale,” in Sancti Columbani Opera, edited by G. S. M. Walker (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1957; reprint, 1970), pp. 168–81, at 175, 177. For a collection of early medieval penitentials, see McNeill and Gamer, Medieval Handbooks of Penance. O’Loughlin, “Penitentials,” pp. 97–104. For a short summary of the surviving early penitentials, see Hugh Connolly, The Irish Penitentials (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1995), pp. 30–36.

196


90. Richard Price, “Informal Penance in Early Medieval Christendom,” in Retribution, Repentance, and Reconciliation, edited by Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004), pp. 29–38, at 32–33. 91. O’Loughlin, Celtic Theology, pp. 55–56. 92. Brown, The Rise, pp. 243–46. 93. Kate Dooley, “From Penance to Confession: The Celtic Contribution,” Bijdragen, tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie 43 (1982): 390–411. 94. de Jong, “Transformations,” pp. 185–224 and Meens, “The Frequency,” pp. 47–55. For the continuing practice of both public and private penance in Anglo-Saxon England, see Brad Bedingfield, “Public Penance in Anglo-Saxon England,” ASE 31 (2002): 223–55. 95. Price, “Informal Penance,” pp. 30–31. 96. Bedingfield, “Public Penance,” pp. 226–29. 97. Richard Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 30–32. 98. Manuela Brito-Martins, “The Concept of Peregrinatio in St. Augustine and Its Influences,” in Exile in the Middle Ages, edited by Laura Napran and Elisabeth Van Houts (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), pp. 83–94, at 83–86. 99. Gillian Clark, “Pilgrims and Foreigners: Augustine on Traveling Home,” in Travel, Communication and Geography in Late Antiquity, edited by Linda Ellis and Frank Kidner (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2004), pp. 149–58. 100. Michael Maher, “Peregrinatio pro Christo: Pilgrimage in the Irish Tradition,” Milltown Studies 43 (1999): 5–39, at 26–32. See, for example, Adomnán, VC, 1.22; Cummean, Penitential, 2.7. 101. Thomas Charles-Edwards, “The Social Background to Irish Peregrinatio,” in The Otherworld Voyage in Early Irish Literature, edited by Jonathan Wooding (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000), pp. 94–108, at 96–102. 102. Michael Richter, Ireland and Her Neighbours in the Seventh Century (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1999), pp. 41–47. 103. Ibid., 44; Gen 12:1; Matt. 10:37. 104. Charles-Edwards, “The Social Background,” pp. 94–98. 105. Ibid., pp. 106–07. 106. Ibid., p. 104; Maher, “Peregrinatio,” pp. 9–11; Patrick’s experience is a little different since his exile was the result of his mission to Ireland rather than his main focus. I am grateful to Thomas Charles-Edwards for this point. 107. Marilyn Dunn, The Emergence of Monasticism (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), pp. 140–42; Life of St. Samson of Dol, translated by Thomas Tayler (Llanerch: Llanerch Press, 1991). 108. Adomnán, VC, second preface; Richter, Ireland, pp. 43.44. The second preface of the Life also describes a British follower of Patrick as a peregrinus. Charles-Edwards, “The Social Background,” pp. 104–05. 109. See chapters 2 and 3. 110. Augustine, “Ep. to Januarius,” pp. 1–6; Bede, Reckoning, p. 64.


197

Chapter 2 1. Jonas, Vitae Columbani abbatis discipulorumque eius, vol. 4, edited by Bruno Krusch, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum, 37 abbatis discipulorumque (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1905) pp. 1–294. There is no translation in English of the entirety of Jonas’ Life of Columbanus. For an English translation of book 1, see Jonas, Life of St. Columbanus, in Monks, Bishops and Pagans: Christian Culture in Gaul and Italy, 500–700, edited by Edward Peters (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1975), pp. 75–113. For general information on Jonas’ Life of Columbanus, see Clare Stancliffe, “Jonas’ Life of Columbanus and His Disciples,” in Studies in Irish Hagiography, edited by John Carey et al. (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2001), pp. 189–220 and Ian N. Wood, “Jonas of Bobbio, the Abbots of Bobbio, from The Life of St. Columbanus,” in Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology, edited by Thomas Head (New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 111–35, at 111–16. 2. For an excellent summary of the goals and types of hagiographical writing, see Thomas Head, ed., Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology (New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. xiii–xxv. 3. Columbanus, Epistles (henceforth Ep.), in Walker, Sancti Columbani Opera, pp. 2–59. For an alternative version of Columbanus’ letter to Pope Gregory the Great (c.600), see Robert Stanton, “Columbanus, Letter 1: Translation and Commentary,” JML 3 (1993): 149–68. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations to Epistle 1 will be from Stanton and quotations from Epistles 2 to 5 are from Walker. 4. David Howlett, “Two Works of Saint Columban,” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 28 (1993): 27–46; Neil Wright, “Columbanus’s Epistulae,” in Columbanus: Studies on the Latin Writings, edited by Michael Lapidge (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997), pp. 29–92. 5. Wright, “Columbanus’s Epistulae,” pp. 50–58. 6. Damian Bracken, “Authority and Duty: Columbanus and the Primacy of Rome,” Peritia 16 (2002): 168–213, at 177–92; Wright, “Columbanus’s Epistulae,” pp. 60–87. 7. For more information, see Michael Lapidge, Columbanus: Studies on the Latin Writings (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1997). 8. For additional information on Gregory, see Martin Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth Century (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood, eds., The World of Gregory of Tours (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 9. Fredegar, The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with Its Continuations, translated by J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1960). 10. Ian N. Wood, “Fredegar’s Fables,” in Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, edited by Anton Scharer and George Scheibelreiter (München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994), pp. 359–66, at 359–60. 11. See also chapters 3.

198


12. A more detailed summary can be found in Donald A. Bullough, “The Career of Columbanus,” in Lapidge, Columbanus pp. 1–28. 13. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.3–4; English translation 9–11. 14. Ibid., 1.6; English translation 12 15. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.10; English translation 17. 16. Theuderic also ruled Austrasia from 612 to 613. 17. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.18–20; English translation 31–37. 18. Ibid., 1.24, 26–27; English translation pp. 51, 54. Ian N. Wood, The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe, 400–1050 (Essex: Pearson Education, 2001), pp. 32–35. 19. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.30; English translation 59, 61. 20. Gregory, History, 10.23. 21. Columbanus, Ep., 1.3. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid., 1.4. 25. Ibid., p. 154. 26. Passover always occurs on luna 14 in the first month of the Jewish calendar. 27. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, translated by G. A. Williamson (New York: Penguin, 1989), 5.23–25. 28. Columbanus, Ep., 1.4. 29. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 7.32. 30. “[Anatolius] was a man of prodigious learning in arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic. We can understand the greatness of his talent from a volume which he composed, On the Pasch, and from ten books, An Introduction to Arithmetic.” Jerome, On Illustrious Men, translated by Thomas Halton (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999), p. 105. 31. Columbanus, Ep., 1.3, p. 152. 32. For a translation of Anatolius’ work, see Daniel McCarthy and Aidan Breen, The Anti-Nicene Christian Pasch: De ratione paschali (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003). 33. Columbanus, Ep., 1.5, p. 154. 34. Columbanus, Ep., 2, pp. 12–23. 35. The Celtic-84 did not list the correct lunar date after the first 84-year cycle. Due to a computistical problem, the table listed dates, which were one day off from reality for every sixty-three years. The beginning of the third cycle meant that the Celtic-84 would list luna 16, for example, when it was actually luna 14. 36. Columbanus, Ep., 3, pp. 22–25. 37. Ibid., 4, pp. 24–37. 38. Ibid., 2.5. 39. Ibid., 2.7. 40. Ibid. 41. Ibid., 3.2. The second century disagreement focused on whether Easter had to be celebrated on a Sunday. 42. Ibid., 3.3, p. 25.

Notes to Pages 30–33 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

49. 50. 51.

52.

53. 54.

55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

68. 69.

199

Ibid., 2.5, 3.2. Bracken, “Authority,” pp. 170–73. Ibid., 181–82. J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), pp. 110–11. Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (London: Fontana Press, 1987), pp. 162–68. Summaries of this controversy can be found in Ibid., pp. 119–27; R. A. Markus, Gregory the Great and His World (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 125–42. Simply stated, Nestorius emphasized the distinction of the two natures of Christ, rather than the Chalcedon definition of unconfused union. Patrick Gray and Michael Herren, “Columbanus and the Three Chapters Controversy—A New Approach,” JTS ns 45, no. 1 (1994): 160–70, at 160–64. Markus, Gregory, pp. 128–39, 173–74. See also Robert Eno, “Papal Damage Control in the Aftermath of the Three Chapters Controversy,” Studia Patristica 19 (1989): 52–56. Markus, Gregory, pp. 147–56; R. A. Markus, “Ravenna and Rome, 554–604,” in From Augustine to Gregory the Great, edited by R. A. Markus (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), XIV, pp. 566–78. Bracken, “Authority,” p. 169. Ralph Mathisen, “Syagrius of Autun, Virgilius of Arles, and Gregory of Rome: Factionalism, Forgery, and Local Authority at the End of the Sixth Century,” in L’Église et la mission au VIe siècle, edited by Christophe de Dreuille (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000), pp. 261–90, at 278–80. Thomas F. X. Noble, “Gregory of Tours and the Roman Church,” in Mitchell and Wood, The World of Gregory of Tours, pp. 145–61. Columbanus, Ep., 5.3, p. 39. Bracken, “Authority,” pp. 175–76, and Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 374–75. Columbanus’ three letters to the papacy all mention his longing to go to Rome. Columbanus, Ep., 1.8–9, 3.2, 5.11. Ibid., 5.11, p. 49. Ibid., 1.8. Ibid., 5.5. Bracken, “Authority,” pp. 179–87. Ibid., pp. 174–75. Gray and Herren, “Columbanus,” pp. 164–70. Columbanus, Ep., 5.4, 5.7. Ibid., 5.9. Ibid., 5.10. James P. Mackey, “The Theology of Columbanus,” in Irland und Europa im früheren Mittelalter, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1996), pp. 228–39, at 234–35. Columbanus, Ep., 5.11–13. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, translated by Henry Davis (New York: Newman Press, 1950), 1.2.

200


70. There is some disagreement as to the subtlety of Columbanus’ arguments. See, for instance, Bracken, “Authority,” p. 212; Joseph Kelly, “The Letter of Columbanus to Gregory the Great,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo (Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1991), pp. 213–23; Wright, “Columbanus’s Epistulae,” p. 87. 71. Bracken, “Authority,” pp. 198–209. Bracken discusses the parallels between the ideas of Gregory and Columbanus on papal leadership. 72. For general surveys about the Merovingian kingdoms, see Edward James, The Franks (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988; reprint, 1991); Ian N. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751 (New York: Longman, 1994). 73. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.18; English translation 31. 74. Ibid.; English translation 32. 75. On the issues of rejecting food, see Ian N. Wood, “The Irish and Social Subversion in the Early Middle Ages,” in Irland, Gesellschaft und Kultur, edited by Dorothea Siegmund-Schultze (Halle: Martin-Luther-Universität HalleWittenberg, 1989), pp. 268–70, at 266–67. See Janet Nelson, “Queens as Jezebels: Brunhild and Balthild in Merovingian History,” in Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, edited by Janet Nelson (London: Hambledon Press, 1986), pp. 1–48, at 28–31. 76. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.19–20; English translation 32–33. 77. Ibid., 1.18; English translation 31. In the Old Testament, Jezebel is the wife of King Ahab of Israel. She persecuted the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 19), arranged the death of an innocent man named Naboth so Ahab could take his vineyard (1 Kings 21), and is blamed for urging her husband to commit many evil acts (1 Kings 21:35). See Janet Nelson, “Queens as Jezebels: Brunhild and Balthild in Merovingian History,” in Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, edited by Janet Nelson (London: Hambledon Press, 1986) pp. 1–48, at 28–31. 78. For an analysis of the ways in which Jonas dealt with conflict in the Life, see Stancliffe, “Jonas’ Life,” pp. 201–19. 79. Ian N. Wood, “Jonas, the Merovingians, and Pope Honorius: Diplomata and the Vita Columbani,” in After Rome’s Fall: Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History, edited by Alexander Murray (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), pp. 106–15. See also Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 352–68. 80. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.6; English translation 12. 81. Wood, “Jonas, the Merovingians,” pp. 105–10. 82. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.18; English translation 33. 83. Wood, “The Irish,” pp. 263–70. 84. Ian N. Wood, “The Vita Columbani and Merovingian Hagiography,” Peritia 1 (1982): 63–80, at 79–80. 85. Jonas, Life, in Peters, Monks, Bishops, and Pagans, p. 105. 86. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.24; English translation 48. 87. Ibid. 88. Foundations—Épaon (517) c. 10; abbots ruling one monastery—Épaon (517) c. 9; submission of abbots to bishops—Orléans (511) c. 19, Orléans (533) c. 2, Arles (544) c. 2 and 5; Episcopal control of monastic property—Épaon (517),


89.

90.

91.

92.

93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.

99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106.

107.

201

c. 8. For a French translation of the canons of the early Merovingian Church councils, see Jean Gaudemet and Brigitte Basdevant, trans., Les canons des conciles mérovingiens, VI-VII siècles, 2 vols., pp. 353–54, Sources Chrétiennes (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1989). For additional information on Merovingian Church councils, see Odette Pontal, Die Synoden im Merowingerreich (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1986). This work is also available in French: Odette Pontal, Histoire des conciles mérovingiens (Paris: Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes [CNRS], 1989). Translations can be found in Judith W. George, Venantius Fortunatus: A Latin Poet in Merovingian Gaul (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); Judith W. George, Venantius Fortunatus: Personal and Political Poems (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1995); Raymond Van Dam, Saints and Their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). Brian Brennan, “The Image of the Merovingian Bishops in the Poetry of Venantius Fortunatus,” JMH 18 (1992): 115–39. See also Simon Coates, “Venantius Fortunatus and the Image of Episcopal Authority in Late Antique and Early Merovingian Gaul,” EHR 65 (2000): 1109–37. For example, Gregory, History, 4.26, 5.5, 5.46, 6.9, 6.38, 7.17, 8.39, 9.23; Fredegar, Chronicle, 19, 24. See also Brennan, “The Image,” pp. 117–20, 124–27; Nelson, “Queens,” pp. 23–27. Ian N. Wood, “Administration, Law and Culture in Merovingian Gaul,” in The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe, edited by Rosemond McKitterick (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 63–81, at 75–77, 80. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, pp. 71–79, 113–35. Gregory, History, 1.18. Ibid., 8.31. Ibid., 10.19. Columbanus, Eps., 2.2–3. Ibid.; see now also Clare Stancliffe, “Columbanus and the Gallic Bishops,” in Auctoritas: Mélanges offerts à Olivier Guillot, edited by Giles Constable and Michel Rouche (Paris: Press de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2006), pp. 205–15. Unfortunately, this was published after the manuscript was submitted. I am grateful to Clare Stancliffe for providing me with a copy of this article. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, 1.2. Ibid., 2.2, 2.6. Ibid., 1.11. Markus, Gregory, pp. 17–31. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, 2.7. Bracken, “Authority,” pp. 202–07. Columbanus, Ep., 2.7. Ibid., 2.8, p. 21. Columbanus, Ep., 2.4. Wright analyzes Columbanus’ use of scriptural allusions to further enforce his innocence and his enemy’s error in persecuting those who humbly followed Christ. Wright, “Columbanus’s Epistulae,” pp. 60–70. The use of this theory in the past is discussed in Barbara H. Rosenwein, Negotiating Space: Power, Restraint, and Privileges of Immunity in Early

202

108. 109. 110.

111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116.

117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124.

125.

126. 127.

128. 129. 130. 131.

Notes to Pages 39–43 Medieval Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), pp. 64–66. Wood, “Jonas, the Merovingians,” pp. 113–20. Rosenwein, Negotiating Space, pp. 46–47. Barbara H. Rosenwein, “Inaccessible Cloisters: Gregory of Tours and Episcopal Exemption,” in Mitchell and Wood, The World of Gregory of Tours, pp. 181–97, at 189–93. Rosenwein, Negotiating Space, pp. 59–73. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 368–72. See chapter 3. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.19 English translation 33. See chapter 3. See also Guiseppe Cuscito, “La politica religiosa della corte Longobarda di fronte allo scisma dei Tre Capitoli,” in Atti del 6 Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’alto Medioevo (Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro Studi, 1980), pp. 373–81. Columbanus, Ep., 5. Ibid., 2.8, p. 23. For an English translation, see Columbanus, Penitential, pp. 168–81. Thomas Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Columbanus,” in Lapidge, Columbanus, pp. 235–37. Ibid., pp. 218–20. For a translation, see Finnian, Penitential, in McNeill and Gamer, Medieval Handbooks, pp. 86–97. Columbanus, Penitential, B. 1–2, 4–9, 11, 13–14, 16, 21–23. For a discussion of these different penitentials, see Cyrille Vogel, Les Libri paenitentiales, Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental; fasc. 27 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1978), pp. 74–78, 81. Thomas Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Theodore and the Iudicia Theodori,” in Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on His Life and Influence, edited by Michael Lapidge (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 141–74, at 162–70; Michael Driscoll, “Penance in Transition: Popular Piety and Practice,” in Medieval Liturgy, edited by Lizette Larson-Miller (New York: Garland Publishing, 1997), pp. 121–63. Columbanus, Penitential, B. 25. Charles-Edwards points out that Columbanus seems to be envisioning a system of only two steps rather than the more traditional four. For heretics themselves, there was a more complex set of public penance required. Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Theodore,” pp. 164–65. See chapter 1. Orléans (511) c. 11–12; Épaon (517) c. 3, 23, and 36; Arles (524) c. 3; Orléans (538) c. 19 and 28; Eauze (511) c. 1; Chalon (647/53) c. 8. Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Columbanus,” in Lapidge, Columbanus, pp. 237–39. Mayke de Jong, “Transformations of Penance,” pp. 215–16.


203

Chapter 3 1. Athala is discussed in Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.1–6. Bertulf is the focus of 2.23–25. For a translation of these chapters, see Wood, “Jonas of Bobbio,” pp. 111–35. Eustasius’ career comprises 2.7–10. For a discussion of the structure of the Life, see Clare Stancliffe, “Jonas’ Life,” pp. 192–201. 2. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.11–22. 3. For the need of hagiographers to discuss controversial episodes when a Life is written soon after the saint’s death, see P. J. Fouracre, “Merovingian History and Merovingian Hagiography,” Past and Present 127 (1990): 3–38. 4. J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar, with Its Continuations (London, New York: Nelson, 1960). See Ian N. Wood, “Fredegar’s Fables,” in Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, edited by Anton Scharer and George Scheibelreiter (München: R. Oldenbourg, 1994), pp. 359–66. 5. For more information, see Walter Goffart, “The Fredegar Problem Reconsidered,” Speculum 38, no. 2 (1963): 206–41; J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), pp. 71–94. 6. Canons of the Merovingian Church councils in Latin are contained in Concilia Galliae A.511–695, edited by C. de Clercq, Corpus Christanorum Series Latina 148 A (Turnhout, Belgium, 1963). 7. Codice Diplomatico del Monastero di S. Columbano di Bobbio, vol. 1, edited by Carlo Cipolla (Roma: Institutuo Storico Italiano, 1918). 8. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.23. 9. Ibid., 2.1 10. Ibid., 1.20; English translation 37. 11. Dunn, The Emergence, 160–69; James, The Franks, pp. 128–37; Friedrich Prinz, “Columbanus, the Frankish Nobility and the Territories East of the Rhine,” in Columbanus and Merovingian Monasticism, edited by H. B. Clarke and Mary Brennan, International Series (Oxford: B.A.R., 1981), pp. 73–87; Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, pp. 184–89. 12. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.24; English translation 50. 13. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church, p. 67. 14. Jonas, Life of Burgundofara, Abbess of Faremoutiers, in Sainted Women of the Dark Ages, edited and translated by Jo Ann McNamara and John Halborg (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992), pp. 155–75. 15. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.7. 16. Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms, pp. 185–86, 89. 17. Ibid., 2.7. 18. Ibid., 2.8. 19. Life of Sadalberga, Abbess of Laon, in McNamara and Halborg, Sainted Women, pp. 176–94. 20. Prinz, “Columbanus,” pp. 73–87. 21. Dunn, The Emergence, pp. 164–66.

204


22. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.8. Friedrich Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich (München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1965), pp. 123–41. 23. Prinz, “Columbanus,” pp. 79–80; Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 163–67. 24. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, pp. 197–202. 25. Stancliffe, “Jonas’ Life,” pp. 205–19. 26. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.9. See chapter 2. 27. Ibid., 2.9. 28. Columbanus, Communal Rule, 1, 3. 29. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.9. 30. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 364–68. 31. Ibid., p. 368. 32. Stancliffe, “Jonas’ Life,” pp. 216–17. 33. Ps. 121:7–8, 1 Thes. 5:17. Collects are prayers said just before the daily Scripture readings that usually summarize the main themes of the readings that follow. 34. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.9. 35. See chapter 1. 36. Stancliffe, “Jonas’ Life,” pp. 212–13. 37. By 640, an increasing number of churchmen were identifying use of the Celtic-84 with heresy. This is discussed in chapters 5, 7, and 8. 38. For a short summary, see Pontal, Histoire des conciles Mérovingiens, pp. 212–15. 39. Council of Clichy (626/27) c. 5. 40. Fredegar, Chronicle, 4.40–41. 41. Ibid., 4.42. 42. Patrick J. Geary, Before France and Germany (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 154–56. 43. P. J. Fouracre, “Merovingians, Mayors of the Palace and the Notion of a ‘Low-Born’ Ebroin,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 57, no. 1 (1984): 1–14, at 6–11. 44. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.9. 45. Treticus and Abelenus against Eustasius; Donatus, bishop of Besançon, Palladius, bishop of Auxerre and Sulpitius, bishop of Bourges for Luxeuil. 46. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.23. For a translation, see Wood, “Jonas of Bobbio,” pp. 125–26. 47. Wood, “Jonas, the Merovingians,” pp. 117–20. 48. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.23. 49. For the text of the papal privilege, see Codice Diplomatico del Monastero di S. Columbano di Bobbio, pp. 102–03. 50. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.23. 51. Wood, “Jonas, the Merovingians,” p. 119. 52. See chapter 2. 53. Jeffrey Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages (London: Routledge, 1979), pp. 37–39. 54. Jeffrey Richards, Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great (London: Routledge, 1980), pp. 192–94. 55. See Eno, “Papal Damage Control,” pp. 52–56. 56. Columbanus, Ep., 5. 57. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.10.


205

58. Ibid., 2.9; Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms, p. 196. 59. By 649, the Bishop of Tortona did support the papacy. However there is no evidence as to when this occurred. 60. Paul the Deacon, History of the Lombards, translated by William Dudley, edited by Edward Peters (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 4.41; Fredegar, Chronicle, 49. 61. Ibid.; Chris Wickham, Early Medieval Italy (London: Macmillan Press, 1981), pp. 34–36. 62. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.1. 63. Ibid., in Wood, Jonas of Bobbio, p. 120. 64. Ibid., 2.19, 22. 65. Ibid., 2.10. 66. Life of Amatus (Vita Amati), in MGH: SRM, vol. 4, edited by Bruno Krusch (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1902), pp. 215–21. 67. Ibid., 7. 68. For information, see Nancy Gauthier, L’Évangélisation des pays de la Moselle (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1980), pp. 274–86. 69. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.10. 70. This is an interesting contrast to an earlier narrative discussing Columbanus and his encounter with a pack of wolves. In that instance, he prayed and the wolves did not attack. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.9; English translation 15. 71. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.10. 72. Columbanus, Ep., 4.4. 73. Stevenson, Jane, “The Monastic Rules of Columbanus,” in Lapidge, Columbanus, pp. 203–16. 74. Columbanus, Monks’ Rule, in Walker, Sancti Columbani Opera, pp. 122–43. 75. Stevenson, “The Monastic Rules,” p. 210. 76. Ibid. 77. Columbanus, Communal Rule, in Walker, Sancti Columbani Opera, pp. 142–69. 78. For a comparison of the Communal Rule and the Penitential of Columbanus, see Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Columbanus,” pp. 224–37. 79. Columbanus, Communal Rule, p. 147. 80. Ibid., 13; Columbanus, Monks’ Rule, 3; Walker, Sancti Columbani Opera, p. 161 n. 3. 81. These include among others the Rule of Donatus founded on the rules of Benedict, Caesarius and Columbanus and the anonymous Rule of a Certain Father to the Virgins based on Benedict and Columbanus. Marilyn Dunn, “Mastering Benedict: Monastic Rules and Their Authors in the Early Medieval West,” EHR 105 (1990): 567–94, at 569–70. For a translation of these rules, see The Ordeal of Community, the Rule of Donatus of Besançon, and the Rule of a Certain Father to the Virgins, translated by Jo Ann McNamara and John Halborg (Toronto: Peregrina Publishing, 1993). 82. Donatus, Rule, 1, Benedict, Rule, 2; Donatus, Rule, 4, Benedict, Rule, 2; Donatus, Rule, 5, Benedict, Rule, 5; Donatus, Rule, 60, Benedict, Rule, 66; Donatus, Rule, 61, Benedict, Rule, 31.

206


83. Donatus, Rule, 3, Benedict, Rule, 4; Donatus, Rule, 37–48, Benedict, Rule, 7; Donatus, Rule, 69–73, Benedict, Rule, 24–28. 84. Donatus, Rule, 28, Columbanus, Communal Rule, 4; Donatus, Rule, 25–27, Columbanus, Communal Rule, 1–3; Donatus, Rule, 75, Columbanus, Communal Rule, 7. 85. Donatus, Rule, 76; Columbanus, Monks’ Rule, 3. 86. There is currently disagreement among scholars as to whether the Rule of the Master should be regarded as a sixth- or seventh-century rule. The arguments are discussed in Dunn, “Mastering Benedict,” pp. 567–94; Aldabert de Vogüé, “The Master and St Benedict: A Reply to Marilyn Dunn,” EHR 107 (1992): 95–103; Marilyn Dunn, “The Master and St Benedict: A Rejoinder,” EHR 107 (1992): 104–11. 87. Dunn, The Emergence, pp. 182–84. For a more detailed argument, see Dunn, “Mastering Benedict,” pp. 567–94. 88. Columbanus, Ep., 4. See chapter 2. 89. Stancliffe, “Jonas’ Life,” pp. 210–15. 90. Dunn, The Emergence, p. 167. 91. Bede, HE, 3.19. 92. Life and Miracles of Fursey, in Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae, edited by W. W. Heist (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1965), p. 38. Geary, Before France, pp. 183–84. 93. Additamentum Nivialense de Fuilano, in Fouracre and Gerberding, Late Merovingian France, pp. 327–29. 94. Fosses: Monasterium Scottorum; Péronne: Peronna Scottorum; Abbot Moinan is listed in All 779.2. 95. Wood, “The Vita Columbani,” p. 69. 96. See chapter 4. 97. Marilyn Dunn, “Gregory the Great, the Vision of Fursey and the Origins of Purgatory,” Peritia 14 (2000): 238–54, at 248–54.

Chapter 4 1. Richard Gameson, “Augustine of Canterbury: Context and Achievement,” in St. Augustine and the Conversion of England, edited by Richard Gameson (Stroud: Sutton, 1999), pp. 1–49, at 10–14; Stéphane Lebecq, “England and the Continent in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries: The Question of Logistics,” in Gameson, St Augustine, pp. 50–67; Ian N. Wood, “Augustine’s Journey,” Canterbury Cathedral Chronicle 92 (1998): 28–44. 2. For post-Roman Britain, see N. J. Higham, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons (London: Seaby, 1992); Christopher Snyder, An Age of Tyrants (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, 1998). 3. David Dumville, “British Missionary Activity in Ireland,” in Saint Patrick, 493–1993, edited by David Dumville (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press,


4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

207

1993), pp. 133–45; Christopher Snyder, The Britons (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), pp. 116–17. Charles-Edwards, “Britons in Ireland,” pp. 15–17. Dumville, “British Missionary Activity,” pp. 140–45. Constantius of Lyon, “The Life of Saint Germanus of Auxerre,” in Soldiers of Christ, translated by F. R. Hoare, edited by Thomas F. X. Noble and Thomas Head (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995), pp. 75–106. E. A. Thompson, Saint Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1984), pp. 15–19. Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, in Gildas: The Ruin of Britain and Other Works, translated by Michael Winterbottom (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1978), pp. 13–79, 87–142. For theories regarding the date of composition, see Snyder, The Britons, pp. 122–24. D. R. Howlett, Cambro-Latin Compositions (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998), pp. 33–43; Michael Lapidge, “Gildas’s Education and the Latin Culture of SubRoman Britain,” in Gildas: New Approaches, edited by Michael Lapidge and David Dumville (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1984), pp. 27–50. Neil Wright, “Gildas’s Prose Style and Its Origins,” in Lapidge and Dumville, Gildas, pp. 107–28. For recent translations of Patrick’s Confession and Letter, see D. R. Howlett, The Book of Letters of Saint Patrick the Bishop (Portland, OR: Four Courts Press, 1994); Thomas O’Loughlin, Discovering Saint Patrick (New York: Paulist Press, 2005), pp. 141–83. John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 14–19; Mark Handley, “The Origins of Christian Commemoration in Late Antique Britain,” EME 10, no. 2 (2001): 177–99; Lucas Quensel-von Kablen, “The British Church and the Emergence of AngloSaxon Kingdoms,” in The Making of Kingdoms, edited by Tania Dickinson and David Griffiths (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1999), pp. 89–97, at 90–94. See Steven Bassett, “Medieval Ecclesiastical Organisation in the Vicinity of Wroxeter and Its British Antecedents,” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 146 (1992): 1–28; Margaret Gelling, The West Midlands in the Early Middle Ages (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1992), pp. 53–71. Gildas, Preface on Penance, in Gildas: The Ruin of Britain and Other Works, edited and translated by Michael Winterbottom (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1978), pp. 84–86. Finnian, Penitential, in McNeill and Gamer, Medieval Handbooks, pp. 86–97; David Dumville, “Gildas and Uinniau,” in Lapidge and Dumville, Gildas, pp. 207–14. See also chapter 1. The Synod of North Britain, in McNeill and Gamer, Medieval Handbooks, pp. 170–71; The Synod of the Grove of Victory, in McNeill and Gamer, Medieval Handbooks, pp. 171–72. Snyder, The Britons, pp. 127–28. For the need to differentiate the different zones of the British Church, see, for example, Blair, The Church, pp. 10–34; Clare Stancliffe, “The British Church

208

16.

17.

18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23.

24. 25.

26. 27.

28.

29. 30.

31. 32.

33.

Notes to Pages 67–70 and the Mission of Augustine,” in Gameson, St Augustine, pp. 107–51, at 115–23. Blair, The Church, pp. 14, 24, 27–28. Clare Stancliffe, “Christianity amongst the Britons, Dalriadan Irish and Picts,” in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 1, edited by Paul Fouracre (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 426–61, at 432–33. For a summary of evidence, see Richard Sharpe, “Martyrs and Local Saints in Late Antique Britain,” in Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West, edited by Alan Thacker and Richard Sharpe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 75–154. Ibid., pp. 112–18. Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, 10.2. Sharpe, “Martyrs,” pp. 118–22. M. Deansesly and P. Grosjean, “The Canterbury Edition of the Answers of Pope Gregory I to St Augustine,” JEH 10 (1959): 1–49, at 28–29. Stancliffe, “The British Church,” pp. 121–22. Stancliffe, “The British Church,” pp. 119–21. Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, 10.2. For a summary of the available sources, see Nicholas Brooks, “The Legacy of Saints Gregory and Augustine in England,” Canterbury Cathedral Chronicle 92 (1998): 45–59, at 45–47. Bede, HE, 5.24. Ian N. Wood, “Augustine and Aidan: Bureaucrat and Charismatic?” in L’Église et la Mission au VIe Siècle, edited by Christophe de Dreuille (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000), pp. 148–79, at 178–79. Bede, HE, preface, p. 3. For example, see Walter Goffart, “The Historia Ecclesiastica: Bede’s Agenda and Ours,” Haskins Society Journal 2 (1990): 29–45; D. P. Kirby, Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum: Its Contemporary Setting, Jarrow Lecture (Jarrow: St Pauls Church, 1992); Alan Thacker, “Bede’s Ideal of Reform,” in Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society, edited by Patrick Wormald (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), pp. 130–53. Jan Davidse, “On Bede as Christian Historian,” in Beda Venerabilis: Historian, Monk and Northumbrian, edited by L. A. J. R. Houwen and A. A. MacDonald (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1996), pp. 1–15. Alan Thacker, “Bede and the Irish,” in Houwen and MacDonald, Beda Venerabilis, pp. 31–59, at 35–38. See, for example, Gregory the Great, The Letters of Gregory the Great, 3 vols., translated by John Martyn (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2004), 6.51, 6.60, 11.34, 11.41. Wood, “Augustine’s Journey,” 28–44. Wallis, Bede, pp. xxxi–xxxiv, lxiii–lxxi. Bede, HE, 2.2. For information on Bede’s sources, see Stancliffe, “The British Church,” pp. 125–29. N. J. Higham, The Convert Kings (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), pp. 103–07; J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People: A Historical Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 219–20. Bede, HE, 2.2, p. 72.


209

34. Ibid., p. 73. 35. For some additional background, see N. J. Higham, “King Cearl, The Battle of Chester and the Origins of the Mercian ‘Overkingship,’ ” Midland History 17 (1992): 1–15, at 6–8. 36. In the Old Testament, God often used “pagan” nations to punish Israel when it disobeyed or departed from the Law. Bede’s audience would have understood the biblical allusions. 37. Molly Miller, “Bede’s Use of Gildas,” EHR 90, no. 2 (1975): 241–61. 38. Bede, HE, 1.12–16, 22. 39. Ibid., 1.17–21. 40. Pelagius had argued that humans have the free will to choose the salvation God offered. Augustine of Hippo, on the other hand, argued that after Adam and Eve had sinned in the Garden of Eden, the human soul was so corrupt that it would never voluntarily turn to God. Therefore, God has chosen the souls he would save, giving them the grace to accept salvation. The more extreme followers of Pelagian ideas appeared to be denying the need for God’s grace in salvation and thus these doctrines were condemned. 41. Bede, HE, 1.18. 42. Ibid., 2.4, 3.38, 4.2, 5.18, 5.21–23. 43. Ibid., 1.21, 2.2. 44. Bede did not want to alert his readers that Rome had used the Victorian table, which he considered heretical. By not mentioning the table by name, he allows the reader to conclude that Rome had always supported the Dionysian. 45. Bede, HE, 2.2. For a survey of baptism, see Peter Cramer, Baptism and Change in the Early Middle Ages, c. 200–c. 1150 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 46. Sarah Foot, “ ‘By Water in the Spirit’: The Administration of Baptism in Early Anglo-Saxon England,” in Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, pp. 171–92, at 172–74; Sybil McKillop, “A Romano-British Baptismal Liturgy?” in The Early Church in Western Britain and Ireland, edited by Susan Pearce (Oxford: Oxford Publishing Press, 1982), pp. 42–43; Jane Stevenson, “Introduction,” in The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, 2nd ed. edited by F. E. Warren, (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1987), pp. ix–cxxviii, at liii–liv. 47. G.G. Willis, A History of Early Roman Liturgy to the Death of Pope Gregory the Great (London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 1994), pp. 130–34. For the Gelasian Rite, see E. C. Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, revised by Maxwell Johnson (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), pp. 212–43. 48. Bede, HE, 1.27. 49. See, for example, Paul Meyvaert, “Diversity within Unity, A Gregorian Theme,” in Benedict, Gregory, Bede and Others, edited by Paul Meyvaert (London: Variorum Reprints, 1977), VI; pp. 141–62, esp. at 160–61. 50. Nicholas Brooks, “Canterbury, Rome and the Construction of English Identity,” in Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West, edited by Julia M. H. Smith (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 222–46, at 227–28. 51. Maxwell Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), pp. 194–200. However, other historians argue that the British

210

52.

53. 54. 55. 56.

57.

58.

59. 60. 61.

62.

63. 64.

65. 66. 67. 68.

Notes to Pages 75–77 would have been unusual in not requiring the episcopal anointing. See Stevenson, “Introduction,” pp. xxiv, liii; Thomas, Christianity, p. 209, but see p. 213. J. D. C. Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West (London: SPCK, 1965), pp. 47–57, 79; Gabriele Winkler, “Confirmation or Chrismation?: A Study in Comparative Liturgy,” in Living Water, Sealing Spirit, edited by Maxwell Johnson (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), pp. 202–18. For the baptismal liturgies from the Missale Gothicum and Bobbio Missal, see Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, pp. 258–63, 265–74, respectively. Foot, “ ‘By Water,’ ” p. 178. See chapter 7. Foot, “ ‘By Water,’ ” p. 178. Steven Bassett, “Church and Diocese in the West Midlands: The Transition from British to Anglo-Saxon Control,” in Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, pp. 13–40; Bassett, “Medieval Ecclesiastical,” pp. 1–28; Patrick Sims-Williams, Religion and Literature in Western England, 600–800 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 75–86. Steven Bassett, “How the West Was Won: The Anglo-Saxon Takeover of the West Midlands,” in Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 11, edited by David Griffiths (Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology, 2000), pp. 107–18 at 112–15. Historia Brittonum (henceforth HB), in Nennius: British History and the Welsh Annals, edited by John Morris (London: Phillimore, 1980), pp. 9–43, 50–84. For information on this text, see David Dumville, “Historia Brittonum: An Insular History from the Carolingian Age,” in Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, edited by Anton Scharer and Georg Scheibelreiter (München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994), pp. 406–34. HB, 63. Bede, HE, 2.14. For a more in-depth analysis of the possible interpretations of this passage, see Caitlin Corning, “The Baptism of Edwin, King of Northumbria: A New Analysis of the British Tradition,” NH 35, no. 1 (2000): 5–15. N. J. Higham, “Imperium in Early Britain: Rhetoric and Reality in the Writings of Gildas and Bede,” in The Making of the Kingdoms, edited by Tania Dickinson and David Griffiths, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 10 (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1999), pp. 31–36, at 32–33. Higham, The Convert Kings, p. 109; Stancliffe, “The British Church,” pp. 139–40. Nicholas Brooks, “Canterbury and Rome: The Limits and Myth of Romanitas,” in Roma fra Oriente e Occidente, no editor (Spoleto: Presso le Sede del Centro, 2002), pp. 797–832, at 828. Ibid., pp. 226–29, 243–46. Bede, HE, 1.32. Brooks, “Canterbury and Rome,” pp. 244–46. Bede, HE, 1.27.


211

69. Brooks, “Canterbury and Rome,” pp. 819–20; Higham, The Convert Kings, pp. 107–12. 70. Brooks, “Canterbury and Rome,” pp. 818–20. 71. Higham, The Convert Kings, pp. 110–12. 72. Bede, HE, 2.2. 73. Stancliffe, “The British Church,” pp. 131, 133. 74. Columbanus, Ep., 2. 75. Bede, HE, 1.31. 76. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, 1.11. 77. Bede, HE, 1.32. 78. Rob Meens, “A Background to Augustine’s Mission to Anglo-Saxon England,” ASE 23 (1994): 5–17. 79. Ibid., pp. 6–9. 80. Lev. 12:1–8. 81. Bede, HE, 1.27. 82. Meens, “The Background,” pp. 15–17. 83. For a supportive view of this theory, see Ian N. Wood, “Some Historical Re-identifications and the Christianization of Kent,” in Christianizing Peoples and Converting Individuals, edited by Guyda Armstrong and Ian N. Wood (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), pp. 27–35, at 31–35. 84. Stancliffe, “The British Church,” pp. 120–21. 85. Bede, HE, 2.4. This letter is discussed in connection with the Irish Church in chapter 5.

Chapter 5 1. Bede, HE, 2.4. 2. Another instance of British churchmen refusing to associate with those who used the Roman table is discussed in chapter 8. 3. Michael Richter, Ireland, p. 208. 4. The bishops included Vienne, Arles, Lyons, Marseilles, Chalon, Metz, Paris, Angers and Gap. Gregory the Great, The Letters, 11.34, 38, 40–42. See also Ian N. Wood, “Augustine and Gaul,” in Gameson, St. Augustine, pp. 68–82. 5. The full translation of this fragment can be found in Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “Mo-Sinnu moccu Min and the Computus of Bangor,” Peritia 1 (1982): 285. 6. Charles Jones, “The Victorian and Dionysiac,” p. 419. 7. Ó Cróinín, “Mo-Sinnu,” pp. 289–95. 8. Bede, Reckoning, 1. 9. Bede, HE, 2.19. 10. Bede, The Greater Chronicle, in McClure and Collins, The Ecclesiastical History, pp. 307–40, Year 4591, p. 332. 11. Bede, HE, 2.19. 12. See chapter 3 for details.

212


13. Bede, HE, 2.17. 14. A translation of Cummian’s letter can be found in Cummian, Letter de Controversia Paschali, translated by Maura Walsh and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1988). All quotations are from the Walsh and Ó Cróinín edition. The identifications of Cummian and Béccán are uncertain. See Walsh and Ó Cróinín, Cummian’s Letter, pp. 7–15. 15. Ibid., pp. 3–7. 16. Cummian, Letter, p. 75. 17. This probably took place in c. 630. 18. Cummian, Letter, pp. 59–65. Thomas Charles-Edwards, “Review of Maura Walsh and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (ed), Cummian’s Letter De controversia paschali,” Peritia 8 (1994): 216–20. 19. Cummian, Letter, p. 61. 20. This work is actually the Liber Quaestionum Veteris et Novi Testamenti by Ambrosiaster. Walsh and Ó Cróinín, Cummian’s Letter, pp. 23–25, 60 n. 36. 21. Columbanus, Eps., 1–3. See also chapter 2. 22. Cummian, Letter, pp. 65–69. For a discussion of Cummian’s separation of Passover/Pasch from Easter see Walsh and Ó Cróinín, Cummian’s Letter pp. 22–29. 23. It should be noted that Cummian does not specify that this is a canon from the Council of Antioch. 24. Charles-Edwards, “Review of Maura Walsh,” pp. 216–20. 25. Cummian, Letter, pp. 69–71. 26. Ibid., pp. 75–83. 27. Ibid., p. 81. This is very similar to the warnings against pride found within Honorius’ letter. 28. It is not possible to identify all the details of these tables as many have not survived. For specifics, see Walsh and Ó Cróinín, Cummian’s Letter, pp. 29–47. 29. See chapter 2. It has been argued that no authentic work by Anatolius survived, however, this has recently been refuted. Anatolius, The Anti-Nicene Christian Pasch: De ratione paschali, translated by Daniel McCarthy and Aidan Breen (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003). 30. Cummian, Letter, pp. 85–87. 31. Anatolius, De ratione paschali, 4–6, 9. 32. Cummian, Letter, pp. 87–91. For the possible mixture of the Dionysian and Victorian materials, see Walsh and Ó Cróinín, Cummian’s Letter, pp. 45–47. 33. For the dating of this text, see Richard Sharpe, Medieval Irish Saints’ Lives (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 334–37; Thomas Charles-Edwards, “The Northern Lectionary: A Source for the Codex Salmanticensis?” in Celtic Hagiography and Saints’ Cults, edited by Jane Cartwright (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2003), pp. 148–60, at 148–50; Clare Stancliffe, “Review of Richard Sharpe’s Medieval Irish Saints’ Lives,” JTS n.s. 44, no. 1 (1993): 378–83. 34. For a translation of the Life, see The Life of Munnu, in Celtic and Early Christian Wexford, AD 400–1066, translated by John Hunt, edited by Edward Culleton (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999), pp. 114–25.

Notes to Pages 88–95 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

40. 41.

42. 43. 44. 45.

46. 47. 48.

213

Walsh and Ó Cróinín, Cummian’s Letter, pp. 50–51. Life of Fintán, 26. Ibid., 27. Bede, HE, 2.19. Judith McClure and Roger Collins, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994; reprint, 1999), pp. 383–84. Life of Fintán, 27. Bede, HE, 2.19, p. 104. There is possibly another phrase from this letter contained within a set of Irish computistical documents, which states that John said “the fourteenth day of the moon belongs to the darkness.” Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “A Seventh-Century Irish Computus from the Circle of Cummianus,” PRIA 82C, no. 11 (1982): 405–30, at p. 409. Jones, “The Victorian and Dionysiac,” 413. Ó Cróinín, “ ‘New Heresy for Old,’ ” pp. 510–16. Bede, HE, 2.19. Herrin and Brown have argued that from c.450 to 630 there was a “common Celtic Church” in Ireland and Britain. They believe that the main distinctive of this tradition was the significant influence of Pelagian theology upon its teaching and practices. Michael Herrin and Shirley Ann Brown, Christ in Celtic Christianity (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002). While there is much of value in this study, most historians have rejected its central idea that Pelagian theology was influential in the Irish and British Churches of this period. See, for instance, Gerald Bonner, “The Pelagian Controversy in Britain and Ireland,” Peritia 16 (2002): 144–55; Gerald Bonner, “Review of Michael W. Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity,” Peritia 16 (2002): 510–13; Thomas Charles-Edwards, “Review of Michael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity,” EME 13, no. 4 (2005): 428–31; Celia Chazelle, “Review of Michael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity,” Speculum 79, no. 1 (2004): 201–03; Jonathan M. Wooding, “Review of Michael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity,” The Medieval Review (2005): http://name.umdl.umich.edu/baj9928.0509.007. Bede, Reckoning, 6; Bede, HE, 5.21. Ó Cróinín, “ ‘New Heresy for Old,’ ” pp. 515–16. See chapter 10.

Chapter 6 1. The classical account of this transformation is found in Kathleen Hughes, The Church in Early Irish Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1966). 2. Herrmann Wasserschleben, Die irische Kanonensammlung, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1885). General information on the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis (CCH) can be found in Richter, Ireland, pp. 215–25.

214


3. Luned Mair Davies, “The ‘mouth of gold’: Gregorian Texts in the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis,” in Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: Text and Transmission, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002), pp. 249–67, at 249–50; Rob Meens, “The Oldest Manuscript Witness of the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis,” Peritia 14 (2000): 1–19. See also Thomas Charles-Edwards, “The Construction of the Hibernensis,” Peritia 12 (1998): 209–37. 4. For information on these men, see Bart Jaski, “Cú Chuimne, Ruben and the Compilation of the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis,” Peritia 14 (2000): 53–60. 5. Maurice Sheehy, “Influence of Ancient Irish Law on the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis,” in Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Medieval Canon Law, edited by Stephan Kuttner (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1971), p. 31. 6. Ludwig Bieler, The Patrician Texts in the Book of Armagh (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1979), pp. 184–91, 62–123, and 123–67, respectively. For information on these texts, see David Dumville, “Muirchu’s Life of St. Patrick from the Book of Armagh,” in Dumville, Saint Patrick, pp. 203–19; Maíre Herbert, “Latin and Vernacular Hagiography of Ireland from the Origins to the Sixteenth Century,” in Hagiographics, edited by Guy Philippart (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), pp. 328–43, at 329–31, 341–42; Clare Stancliffe, “The Miracle Stories in Seventh-Century Irish Saints’ Lives,” in Le Septième siècle: changements et continuités, edited by Jacques Fontaine and J. N. Hillgarth (London: The Warburg Institute, 1992), pp. 87–115. 7. Ludwig Bieler, The Irish Penitentials, pp. 54–59, 184–97. David Dumville, “St. Patrick at His First Synod?” in Dumville, Saint Patrick, pp. 175–78; Kathleen Hughes, “Synodus II s. Patricii,” in Latin Script and Letters, edited by John O’Meara and Bernd Naumann (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 141–47. 8. J. G. O’Keeffe, “The Rule of Patrick,” Eriu 1 (1904): 216–24. The applicable section is also available in Colmán Etchingham, “Bishops in the Early Irish Church: A Reassessment,” Studia Hibernica 28 (1994): 35–62, at 46–47. 9. For a translation, see Sean Connolly, “Vita Prima Sanctae Brigitae,” JRSAI 119 (1989) 5–49. Herbert, “Latin and Vernacular Hagiography,” pp. 332–33, 335–36; Richard Sharpe, “Vitae S Brigidae: The Oldest Texts,” Peritia 1 (1982): 81–106. 10. Sean Connolly and Jean-Michel Picard, “Cogitosus’s Life of St. Brigit,” JRSAI 117 (1987): 5–27. 11. Hughes, The Church, pp. 62–64. 12. Ibid., pp. 74–82. 13. Pádraig Ó Néill, “Romani Influences on Seventh-Century Hiberno-Latin Literature,” in Irland und Europa: Die Kirche im Frühmittelalter, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984), pp. 280–90, at 280–81. 14. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 248–49. 15. Thomas Charles-Edwards, “The Church in the Early Irish Laws,” in Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, pp. 63–80, at 67. 16. Jean-Michal Picard, “Princeps and Principatus in the Early Irish Church: A Reassessment,” in Seanchas: Studies in Early and Medieval Irish Archaeology,


17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

215

History, and Literature in Honour of Francis J. Byrne, edited by Alfred P. Smyth (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000), pp. 146–60. Colmán Etchingham, Church Organisation in Ireland (Maynooth: Laigin Publications, 1999), pp. 363–454; Richard Sharpe, “Churches and Communities in Early Medieval Ireland: Towards a Pastoral Model,” in Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, pp. 81–109, at 102. Charles-Edwards, “The Church,” p. 67. Colmán Etchingham, “The Implications of Paruchia,” Eriu 44 (1993): 139–62, at 139–40. Ibid., pp. 139–62. Ibid., pp. 139–44. Etchingham, Church Organisation in Ireland, pp. 106–25; Thomas Charles-Edwards, “Introduction,” in A New History of Ireland, vol. 1, edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. lvii–lxxxii, at lxxi–lxxii, lxxiv. Etchingham, Church Organization in Ireland, pp. 126–30. Thomas Charles-Edwards, “Érlam: The Patron–Saint of an Irish Church,” in Thacker and Sharpe, Local Saints, pp. 267–90. Etchingham, “Bishops,” pp. 39–41. Ibid., pp. 42–45. Ibid., pp. 44–46. Charles-Edwards, “The Church,” pp. 67–73. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 423–26. Ibid., pp. 421–29. Máirín Ní Dhonnchadha, “The Law of Adomnán: A Translation,” in Adomnán at Birr, AD 697, edited by Thomas O’Loughlin (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2001), pp. 53–68, at 57–59. Máirín Ní Dhonnchadha, “The Guarantor List of the Cain Adomnáin, 697,” Peritia 1 (1982): 184–96. Etchingham, “Bishops,” p. 44. For an overview of the organizational structures in the Church, see Clare Stancliffe, “Religion and Society in Ireland,” in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 1, edited by Paul Fouracre (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 397–425, at 417–25. Charles-Edwards, “Introduction,” pp. lxxii–lxxiii. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 250–57; Etchingham, Church Organisation, pp. 223–33. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 276–77; Charles-Edwards, “Introduction,” pp. lxxiv–lxxv. Ibid., pp. 271–72. Ibid., pp. 264–69. Brown, The Rise, pp. 206–14; Herrin, The Formation, pp. 172–73. Ó Néill, “Romani Influences,” pp. 280–90. In the older theory it was believed that members of the “Celtic Church” saw no problem with diversity in Easter dating. For analysis of the sources of the Hibernensis, see Luned Mair Davies, “Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua and the Gallic Councils in the Hibernensis,” Peritia 14 (2000): 85–110; Davies, “The ‘Mouth of Gold,’ ” pp. 249–67; Richter, Ireland,

216

42. 43. 44.

45. 46. 47. 48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

61.

62.

63. 64.

Notes to Pages 103–106 pp. 217–25; Michael Richter, “Dating the Irish Synods in the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis,” Peritia 14 (2000): 70–84. Matt. 18:15–17. 2 Cor. 6:14–15. The Roman canon is from the Second Synod of St Patrick, 4. CCH, 40.1, translation mine. I am grateful to Thomas Charles-Edwards for his suggestions on the translation of this and other passages of the Hibernensis. Richter has estimated that there are about 640 statements from patristic sources and about 250 from councils and synods. Richter, Ireland, p. 218. The numbers quoted in this section are only approximate since a new edition of the Hibernensis is needed for accurate statistics. Richter, “Dating the Synods,” pp. 70–84. Wasserschleben, Die irische Kanonensammlung. Roy Fletcher is preparing a new edition of the Hibernensis as an Oxford D. Phil thesis, 2006. My thanks to Thomas Charles-Edwards for this information. Hughes, The Church, pp. 127–31. CCH 18.2.a, 21.2, 28.5.b, 33.4, 35.4.c, 46.29, 66.16. CCH 28.5.b. CCH 28.10.b. CCH 33.4, 33.6.a–d, 33.9, 37.38. CCH 52.2–3, 52.6. One manuscript variation discusses an Irish tonsure that was first worn by a shepherd of King Lóegaire. CCH 52.6.a. Translation mine. CCH 20.6. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, p. 391; Richter, Ireland, p. 222. Richard Sharpe, “An Irish Textual Critic and the Carmen Paschale of Sedulius: Colmán’s Letter to Feradach,” JML 2 (1992): 44–54. Ibid., p. 54. Martin McNamara, Glossa in Psalmos: The Hiberno-Latin Gloss on the Psalms of Codex Palatinus Latinus 68, vol. 310, Studie e Testi (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1986); Ps. 49, 52, and 54. Martin McNamara, “The Bible in Academe and in Ecclesia: Antiochene and Early Irish Exegesis of Messianic Psalms,” Milltown Studies 39 (1997): 112–29; Pádraig Ó Néill, “Irish Transmission of Late Antique Learning: The Case of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Psalms,” in Chatháin and Richter, Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 68–77. An exception to this was Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, who supported the Antiocene approach to biblical exegesis. See Bernard Bischoff and Michael Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994), esp. pp. 243–49. Though Theodore had Irish students, Richter argues that the historical focus was already present in Irish circles before Theodore’s arrival in England. Richter, Ireland, p. 198. McNamara, Glossa in Psalmos, pp. 40–43. Martin McNamara, “The Irish Tradition of Biblical Exegesis,” in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena: The Bible and Hermeneutics, edited by Gerd Van Riel, Carlos


65.

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

72. 73. 74.

75.

76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

217

Steel, and James McEvoy (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), pp. 25–54, at 33–34. Martin McNamara, “The Psalms in the Irish Church,” in The Bible as Book: The Manuscript Tradition, edited by John Sharpe and Kimberly Van Kampen (London: British Library, 1998), pp. 89–103. McNamara, “The Irish Tradition,” pp. 32–34. Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “Mo-Sinnu,” p. 285. See chapter 5. Ó Néill, “Romani,” pp. 89–90. Columbanus, Ep., 1.9. Due to this Cahill is skeptical of an Irish provenance for the document. McNamara argues for Irish features and the diversity of Psalm exegesis in Ireland. See Michael Cahill, “The Introductory Material to an Early (Irish?) Commentary on Mark,” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 14, no. 1991 (1991): 93–114; Michael Cahill, “Is the First Commentary on Mark an Irish Work?: Some New Considerations,” Peritia 8 (1994): 35–45. For arguments for an Irish provenance, see McNamara, “The Irish Tradition,” pp. 36–37; Walsh and Ó Cróinín, Cummian’s Letter, pp. 218–21. Richter, Ireland, p. 198. For general surveys of Irish scholarship in this period, see Ibid., pp. 184–216; Ó Cróinín, Early Medieval Ireland, pp. 183–95, 203–21. See, for instance, Hughes, The Church, pp. 130–31; Ó Néill, “Romani,” pp. 280–90. Roger Reynolds, “The Transmission of the Hibernensis in Italy: Tenth to the Twelfth Century,” Peritia 14 (2000): 20–50. Reynolds discusses the Hibernensis in general, but his list of canons found in later collections can be compared with “Irish Synod” canons in the Hibernensis. Martin McNamara, “Tradition and Creativity in Early Irish Psalter Study,” in Irland und Europa: Die Kirche im Frühmittelalter, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984), pp. 338–89, at 377–81. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 416–40. Ibid., pp. 428–29. CCH 20.6. Book of the Angel, 28. Ibid., 19; Tírechán, Collectanea, 48; Muirchú, Life of Patrick, 2.3. Richard Sharpe, “Armagh and Rome in the Seventh Century,” in Ní: Chatháin and Richter, Irland und Europa, pp. 58–72, at 59–60.

Chapter 7 1. Æthelfrith is the Northumbrian king whom Bede presents as fulfilling Augustine’s prophecy against the British. For additional information on the exile of Æthelfrith’s sons, see Hermann Moisl, “The Bernician Royal Dynasty and the Irish in the Seventh Century,” Peritia 2 (1983): 103–26, at 103–16;

218

2.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

Notes to Pages 112–115 Michelle Ziegler, “The Politics of Exile in Early Northumbria,” The Heroic Age 2 (1999). www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ ha2pen.htm For additional information on Cadwallon and Penda, see among others Nicholas Brooks, “The Formation of the Mercian Kingdom,” in The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, edited by Steven Bassett (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1989), pp. 159–70, at 164–70; N. J. Higham, The English Empire (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), pp. 133–43; Alex Woolf, “Caedualla Rex Brettonum and the Passing of the Old North,” NH 49, no. 1 (2004): 5–24. Bede, HE, 3.1. For an excellent survey of the historiographical issues, see Clare Stancliffe, “Oswald, ‘Most Holy and Most Victorious King of the Northumbrians,’ ” in Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint, edited by Clare Stancliffe and Eric Cambridge (Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1995), pp. 33–83. For a summary of the issues surrounding Edwin, see N. J. Higham, “King Edwin of the Deiri: Rhetoric and the Reality of Power in Early England,” in Early Deira, edited by Helen Geake and Jonathan Kenny (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2000), pp. 41–49. Heavenfield, near Hexham, near Hadrian’s Wall. Bede, HE, 3.2. For the broader cultural and political situation, see Rosemary Cramp, “The Making of Oswald’s Northumbria,” in Stancliffe and Cambridge, Oswald, pp. 17–33. Bede reports that James, a deacon, remained in Northumbria after Paulinus fled, but little is known about his activities between that time and the establishment of the bishopric at Lindisfarne. Bede, HE, 2.20. For Paulinus’ journey, see Rex Gardner, “The Departure of Paulinus from Northumbria: A Reappraisal,” Archaeologia Aeliana 5th series, 24 (1996): 73–77. Bede, HE, 3.25; Stephanus, The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus, translated by Bertram Colgrave (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1927; reprint, 1985), p. 10. All Life of Wilfrid quotes are from the Colgrave edition. For general information on Northumbrian history from 615 to 660, see D. P. Kirby, The Earliest English Kings (New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 77–98. Bede, Letter to Egbert, in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, edited by Judith McClure and Roger Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 343–57. Ibid, pp. 353–55. Gerald Bonner, “Bede: Scholar and Spiritual Teacher,” in Northumbria’s Golden Age, edited by Jane Hawkes and Susan Mills (Phoenix Mill, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 1999), pp. 365–70. A slightly longer version of this article is available at Gerald Bonner, “Bede—Priest and Scholar,” Milltown Studies 39 (1997): 66–77. DeGregorio argues that issues of reform can especially be seen in Bede’s later exegetical works. Scott DeGregorio, “ ‘Nostorum socordiam temporum’: The Reforming Impulse of Bede’s Later Exegesis,” EME 11, no. 2 (2002): 107–22.


15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

37.

38.

219

Scott DeGregorio, “Bede’s In Ezram et Neemiam and the Reform of the Northumbrian Church,” Speculum 79, no. 1 (2004): 1–25. See, for instance, Thacker, “Bede and the Irish,” pp. 31–59. Bede, HE, 5.21. Ibid., 2.19. Thacker, “Bede and the Irish,” pp. 33–34. Bede, HE, 3.3. “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” Rom. 10: 1–4 (NIV). See, for example, Bede, HE, 3.3–4, 3.17, 3.25. Ibid., p. 115. Traditionally, Stephanus was identified as Eddius, a singing-master from Kent, whom Bede reports was brought to Northumbria by Wilfrid. More recent scholarship, however, pointing out the insufficient evidence for connecting Stephanus with Eddius favors using “Stepanus” or “Stephen of Ripon” for the author of the Life. Bede, HE, 4.2. Stephanus, Vita Wilfridi Life of Wilfrid (VW), 2. Ibid., 3. This is the same man who was abbot when Bede was given to Wearmouth as a child. Stephanus, VW, 4. See also David Pelteret, “St Wilfrid: Tribal Bishop, Civic Bishop or Germanic Lord?” in The Community, The Family and the Saint, edited by Joyce Hill and Mary Swan (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 159–80, at 165–67. Stephanus, VW, 5–6. Ibid., 7–12. Ibid., 59. Ibid., 64. For additional theories on dating this work see D. P. Kirby, “Bede, Eddius Stephanus and the ‘Life of Wilfrid,’ ” EHR 98 (1983): 101–14. Barbara Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (London: Seaby, 1990; reprint 1997), pp. 111–17. Kirby, The Earliest, pp. 146–48. Clare Stancliffe, “Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish,” Jarrow Lecture (2003): 2–8. Stephanus, VW, 10. See Bede, The Greater Chronicle, Year 4591, for the reference to Honorius. Bede, HE, 2.19 for John’s letter. Stancliffe, “Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish,” pp. 5–13. Mark Laynesmith, “Stephen of Ripon and the Bible: Allegorical and Typological Interpretations of the Life of St. Wilfrid,” EME 9, no. 2 (2000): 163–82, at 169–72. Stephanus, VW, 2, 6.

220


39. Among other articles, see Bonner, “Bede—Priest and Scholar,” pp. 66–77; Bonner, “Bede: Scholar and Spiritual Teacher,” pp. 365–70; Jan Davidse, “On Bede as Christian Historian,” in Houwen and MacDonald, Beda Venerabilis, pp. 1–15; Goffart, The Historia Ecclesiastica, pp. 29–45; D. P. Kirby, Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, pp. 1–22. 40. For a short summary of the major events in Oswald’s reign, see Kirby, The Earliest, pp. 88–92. For a more in depth analysis, see Stancliffe, “Oswald,” pp. 33–83. 41. On the use of conversion and godparentage to strengthen political influence, see Joseph Lynch, Christianizing Kinship (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), esp. pp. 209–12. On Oswald’s religious policies, see N. J. Higham, The Convert King, pp. 242–50. 42. Bede, HE, 3.21. 43. Ibid., 3.22. 44. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 316–17, Higham, The Convert Kings, pp. 223–48; N. J. Higham, “Dynasty and Cult: The Utility of Christian Mission to Northumbrian Kings between 642–654,” in Hawkes and Mills, Northumbria’s Golden Age, pp. 94–104. 45. Bede, HE, 3.17, 25. 46. Ibid., 3.25; Wallace-Hadrill, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, p. 125. 47. Ibid., 3.25. 48. Stancliffe, Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish, p. 10. 49. Bede, Prose Life of Cuthbert (PVC), in Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert, edited by Bertram Colgrave (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1940; reprint, 1985), 7. 50. Bede, HE, 3.25; Stephanus, VW, 8; Bede, PVC, 8. 51. Bede, HE, 3.25. 52. Ibid., 3.24. 53. Richard Abels, “The Council of Whitby: A Study in Early Anglo-Saxon Politics,” The Journal of British Studies 23, no. 1 (1984): 1–25, at 5–20. 54. Stephanus, VW, 7. 55. Higham, The Convert Kings, pp. 253–55. 56. Geary, Before France, pp. 172–74. 57. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, p. 319. 58. Abels, “The Council,” pp. 9–10. 59. This would most likely exclude an attempt to gain Eanflæd’s support since she was Alhfrith’s step-mother and had her own son, Ecgfrith whom she would have championed as the next king. Ibid., pp. 7–8. 60. For issues on the exact dating, see Jennifer Moreton, “Doubts about the Calendar: Bede and the Eclipse of 664,” Isis 89 (1998): 50–65. 61. Daniel McCarthy and Daniel Breen, “Astronomical Observations in the Irish Annals and Their Motivation,” Peritia 11 (1997): 1–43, at 24–30, 43. 62. Bede, HE, 3.27. 63. “This dispute naturally troubled the minds and hearts of many people who feared that, though they had received the name of Christian, they were running or had run in vain.” Bede, HE, 3.25, p. 153.


221

64. Ibid.; Stephanus, VW, 10. 65. Bede, HE, 3.25, p. 155. 66. An excellent analysis of this issue can be found in Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 398–405. 67. Matt. 7:21–23. 68. Bede, HE, 3.25, p. 158. 69. Ibid., 3.26. 70. Stephanus, VW, 10 71. Ibid.

Chapter 8 1. Dates for the Cuthbert Lives are from D. P. Kirby, “The Genesis of a Cult: Cuthbert of Farne and Ecclesiastical Politics in Northumbria in the Late Seventh and Early Eighth Centuries,” JEH 46, no. 3 (1995): 383–97, at 385. 2. For a discussion of the development of saints’ cults in England in this period, see Alan Thacker, “In Search of Saints: The English Church and the Cult of Roman Apostles and Martyrs in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries,” in Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West, edited by Julia M. H. Smith (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 247–77. 3. Bede, HE, 3.29. 4. Ibid., p. 165. 5. Stancliffe, “Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish,” pp. 5–6. 6. For additional background on Theodore, see Bischoff and Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries, pp. 5–81. For a summary of this larger study, see Michael Lapidge, “The Career of Archbishop Theodore,” in Lapidge, Archbishop Theodore, pp. 1–29. 7. Lapidge, “The Career,” pp. 19–26. 8. Bede, HE, 4.5. 9. Ibid., p. 181, emphasis mine. 10. Stancliffe, “Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish,” pp. 29–32. For additional information on this penitential, see Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Theodore,” pp. 141–74 and Roy Flechner, “The Making of the Canons of Theodore,” Peritia 17–18 (2003–04): 121–43. 11. For aspects of the manuscript tradition, see Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Theodore,” pp. 141–47, 155–58. 12. Theodore, Penitential, in McNeill and Gamer, Medieval Handbooks, pp. 179–215, at 1.5.3, p. 188. All quotes are from this edition. 13. Ibid., 1.5.4–5. 14. Ibid., 1.5.13, p. 189. 15. Ibid., 1.5.8–9, p. 189. 16. Ibid., 1.5.1–2, 7, 10–12. 17. Ibid., 2.9.1.

222 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

39. 40. 41. 42.

43.

44. 45.

Notes to Pages 133–137 Theodore, Penitential, 2.9.2. Ibid., 2.9.3, p. 207. Ibid., 1.5.6. Michael Lapidge and Michael Herren, Aldhelm: The Prose Works (Ipswich: D. S. Brewer, 1979), pp. 141–43. Aldhelm, Letter to Geraint, in Lapidge and Herren, Aldhelm, pp. 155–60. Ibid., p. 157. Ibid., pp. 157–58. Ibid., p. 158. Bede, HE, 2.4. Aldhelm, Letter, p. 159. Ibid., pp. 159–60. Aldhelm quotes scripture for support: James 2:19–20, 1 Cor. 13:23. Bede, HE, 5.18. Stephanus, VW, 12–15. Ibid., 15, p. 33. Wilfrid had contacts with the Columbanian circle. It has been argued that Stephanus’ allusions to the Queen as a second Jezebel may have been influenced by Jonas’ Life of Columbanus. Simon Coates, “The Role of Bishops in the Early Anglo-Saxon Church: A Reassessment,” History 81 (1996): 177–96, at 188–89. Stephanus, VW, 24–32. Ibid., 33–34, 39–40. Ibid., 41–44. Ibid., 46–59. Ibid., 60–65. Mark Laynesmith, “Stephen of Ripon and the Bible: Allegorical and Typological Interpretations of the Life of St. Wilfrid,” EME 9, no. 2 (2000): 163–82, at 168–72. Stephanus, VW, 7, 9, and 15. Ibid., 7. Ibid., 24, p. 51. Laynesmith, “Stephen of Ripon,” pp. 174–75. Stephanus, VW, p. 36. “Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. ‘Quick, get up!’ he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists” (Acts 12:7, NIV). For example: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:11–12) and “If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also” (John 15:19–20a, NIV). Coates, “The Role,” pp. 185–87. For a translation of The Deeds of Aunemund, see Fouracre and Gerberding, Late Merovingian France, pp. 166–92.


223

46. For translations of the Suffering of Leudegar and the Suffering of Praejectus, see Fouracre and Gerberding, Late Merovingian France, pp. 193–253, 254–300. 47. Coates, “The Role,” pp. 187–90. 48. Stephanus, VW, 6. The other manuscript identifies the queen as Balthild. 49. Coates, “The Role,” p. 188. 50. Stephanus, VW, 12, p. 25. 51. Stancliffe, Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish, pp. 6–7. 52. Stephanus, VW, 14, p. 31. 53. Ibid., 15, p. 33. 54. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 320–21, 336–37; Stancliffe, Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish, pp. 10–21. 55. Stephanus, VW, 47, p. 99 56. Richard Gameson, “Why did Eadfrith Write the Lindisfarne Gospels?” in Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages, edited by Richard Gameson and Henrietta Leyser (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 45–58, at 51–54. 57. Bede, HE, 4.12. 58. Kirby, “The Genesis,” pp. 288–89. 59. For a discussion of the relationship between Wilfrid and the moderate party, see Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 320–43. 60. Bede, HE, 3.17; Stancliffe, Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish, p. 25. 61. Bede, PVC, 6. 62. Bede, HE, 3.25. Bede does not specifically link this event to Cuthbert. 63. Bede, PVC, 16–18. 64. Bede, HE, 4.28. 65. Alan Thacker, “Lindisfarne and the Origins of the Cult of St Cuthbert,” in St Cuthbert, His Cult and His Community to AD1200, edited by Gerald Bonner et al. (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1989), pp. 110–17. 66. Goffart, “The Historia Ecclesiastica,” p. 34. 67. Anonymous, The Life of Saint Cuthbert, in Colgrave, Two Lives, 2.2. All quotes are from this edition. 68. John Higgitt, “The Iconography of St Peter in Anglo-Saxon England, and St Cuthbert’s Coffin,” in Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, pp. 267–85, at 237–75; Clare Stancliffe, “Cuthbert and the Polarity between Pastor and Solitary,” in Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, pp. 21–44, at 23, 27. It should be noted that Cubitt argues that the author was only indicating that Cuthbert entered holy orders, but did not become a monk until he entered Melrose. Catherine Cubitt, “Images of St Peter: The Clergy and the Religious Life in Anglo-Saxon England,” in The Christian Tradition in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Paul Cavill (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2004), pp. 41–54, at 46. 69. Anonymous, VC, 2.1, p. 97. 70. Walter Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 268–69. 71. Thacker, “Lindisfarne,” pp. 107–13. 72. These passages are marked in Bertram Colgrave, Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1940; reprint, 1985), pp. 60–64. 73. Higgitt, “The Iconography,” pp. 267–85.

224


74. Higgitt, “The Iconography,” pp. 273–75, 85. 75. Goffart, The Narrators, p. 256. For an analysis of the earliest surviving fragments of Bede’s metrical Life, see Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge, “The Earliest Manuscript of Bede’s Metrical Vita S. Cuthbercti,” ASE 32 (2003): 43–54. For a general discussion on this Life, see Michael Lapidge, “Bede’s Metrical Vita S. Cuthberti,” in Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, pp. 77–93. 76. Bede, Prose Life of St. Cuthbert, in Colgrave, Two Lives, pp. 142–307. All quotes are from this edition. Bede composed the prose Life before 721. Kirby, “The Genesis,” p. 385. Along with the references below, see Walter Berschin, “Opus deliberatum ac perfectum: Why Did the Venerable Bede Write a Second Prose Life of St. Cuthbert,” in Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, pp. 95–102; Catherine Cubitt, “Memory and Narrative in the Cult of Early Anglo-Saxon Saints,” in The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, edited by Yithak Hen and Matthew Innes (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 29–66, at 39–50; John Eby, “Bringing the Vita to Life: Bede’s Symbolic Structure of the Life of St. Cuthbert,” ABR 48, no. 3 (1997): 316–38; Karl Lutterkort, “Beda Hagiographicus: Meaning and Function of Miracle Stories in the Vita Cuthberti and the Historia Ecclesiastica,” in Houwen and MacDonald, Beda Venerabilis, pp. 81–106, at 83–90; Carole Newlands, “Bede and Images of Saint Cuthbert,” Traditio 52 (1997): 73–109. 77. Goffart, The Narrators, pp. 283–85. 78. Simon Coates, “The Bishop as Pastor and Solitary: Bede and the Spiritual Authority of the Monk-Bishop,” JEH 47, no. 4 (1996): 601–19; Thacker, “Lindisfarne,” pp. 117–22. 79. Kirby, “The Genesis,” pp. 389–90; Joel Rosenthal, “Bede’s Life of Cuthbert: Preparatory to the Ecclesiastical History,” CHR 68 (1982): 599–617. 80. Bede, PVC, 24. 81. Trent Foley, “Suffering and Sanctity in Bede’s Prose Life of St. Cuthbert,” JTS n.s. 50, no. 1 (1999): 102–16, at 113. 82. Ibid., pp. 103–07. 83. Ibid., p. 114. 84. Stancliffe, “St Cuthbert,” pp. 27–28, 39–40. 85. Bede, PVC, 7. 86. Ibid., 8. 87. Ibid., 4; Bede, metrical VC, 4; Anonymous, VC, 5. 88. Ibid., 4, p. 167; Charles. Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, p. 338. 89. Bede, PVC, 16. 90. Thacker, “Bede and the Irish,” pp. 41–45. 91. Bede, HE, 1.27. 92. For example, see Bede, PVC, 11, 14, 19–20, 41. 93. David Rollason, “Why Was St. Cuthbert so Popular?” in Cuthbert: Saint and Patron, edited by David Rollason (Durham, UK: Dean and Chapter of Durham, 1987), p. 20. 94. Bede, PVC, 37–40. 95. Ibid., 39, p. 285.


225

96. D. P. Kirby, “Cuthbert, Boisil of Melrose and Ecgberht,” in Richter and JeanMichel Picard, Ogma, pp. 48–53, at 51. 97. Goffart states “Wilfrid appears time and time again in books III-V [of the History], yet manages to escape any suspicion of greatness until his obituary notice, if there.” Goffart, The Narrators, p. 307. 98. See, for example, Bede, HE, 3.13, 4.2–3, 4.5, 4.12, 4.15–16, 4.19, 4.29, 5.3, 5.11, 5.18, 5.20, 5.24. 99. Bede, HE, 3.25, 3.28, 4.13, 5.19, respectively. 100. Bede, HE, 4.27–4.32. 101. Coates, “The Bishop,” pp. 601–19; Coates, “The Role,” pp. 179–82. 102. George Hardin Brown, “Royal and Ecclesiastical Rivalries in Bede’s History,” Renascence 52, no. 1 (1999): 19–33, at 28–31. 103. Bede, HE, 4.12. 104. Catherine Cubitt, “Wilfrid’s ‘Usurping Bishops’: Episcopal Elections in Anglo-Saxon England, c. 600–800,” NH 24 (1989): 18–38. 105. Gerald Bonner, “ ‘The Holy Spirit Within’: St Cuthbert as a Western Orthodox Saint,” Sobornost 1, no. 1 (1979): 9–22.

Chapter 9 1. The Annals of Ulster (AU), translated by Sean Mac Airt and Gaeroid Mac Niocaill (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1983), 711.3. All quotes are from this edition. 2. The ground breaking article on this subject is John Bannerman, “Notes on the Scottish Entries in the Early Irish Annals,” in Studies in the History of Dalriada, edited by John Bannerman (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1974), pp. 9–26. See also Daniel McCarthy, “The Chronological Apparatus of the Annals of Ulster, AD 431–1131,” Peritia 8 (1994): 47–79; Daniel McCarthy, “The Chronological Apparatus of the Annals of Ulster AD 82–1019,” Peritia 16 (2002): 256–83; Daniel McCarthy, “The Original Compilation of the Annals of Ulster,” Studia Celtica 38 (2004): 69–96. 3. AU, 715, pp. 171, 173. 4. The Annals of Inisfallen, translated by Sean MacAirt (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1988); Annals of Tigernach, 2 vols. translated by Whitley Stokes (Felinfach: Llanerch Publishers, 1993). For analysis, see Kathryn Grabowski and David Dumville, Chronicles and Annals of Mediaeval Ireland and Wales (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1984). 5. Daniel McCarthy, “The Chronology of the Irish Annals,” PRIA 98 C, no. 6 (1998): 203–55; Daniel McCarthy, “The Chronology and Sources of the Early Irish Annals,” EME 10, no. 3 (2001): 323–41. For comparative tables of the events in the major annals by year and presentation order, see Daniel McCarthy, Irish Chronicles and Their Chronology 4 (2005); available from

226

6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Notes to Pages 151–154 https://www.cs.tcd.ie/Dan.McCarthy/chronology/synchronisms/ annals-chron.htm. For translations of these texts, see Brut Y Tywysogyon, 2nd ed., translated by Thomas Jones (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1973); Annales Cambriae, in Nennius: British History and the Welsh Annals, edited by John Morris (London: Phillimore, 1980), pp. 44–49, 85–91; Historia Brittonum, in Ibid., pp. 9–43, 50–84. For analysis of these texts, see David Dumville, “Historia Brittonum: An Insular History from the Carolingian Age,” in Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, edited by Anton Scharer and Georg Scheibelreiter (München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag Wien, 1994), pp. 406–34; Kathleen Hughes, Celtic Britain in the Early Middle Ages, edited by David Dumville (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1980). Ségéne was abbot of Iona when Aidan was sent to Lindisfarne as bishop. Máire Herbert, Iona, Kells and Derry (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 45–46. For a summary of the major issues surrounding Adomnán, see Richter, Ireland, pp. 66–88. It appears that Aldfrith was born and raised in Ireland. See Colin Ireland, “Aldfrith of Northumbria and the Irish Genealogies,” Celtica 22 (1991): 64–78; Richter, Ireland, pp. 94–97. The prisoners return to Ireland is recorded in the ATig, 687.5 and the AU, 687.5. This entry is repeated in the ATig, 689.6 though the earlier entry appears more chronologically accurate. Bede, HE, 5.15. Alfred Smyth, Warlords and Holymen: Scotland AD 80–1000 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1984; reprint, 1989), pp. 130–31. Adomnán, Life of St. Columba, translated by Richard Sharpe (London: Penguin Books, 1995), 2.46. Bede, HE, 5.15. ATig, 692.1, 697.3; AU, 692.1, 697.3. Alan Macquarrie, The Saints of Scotland (Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers, 1997), pp. 163–64; Richard Sharpe, Adomnan of Iona: Life of St. Columba (New York: Penguin, 1995), p. 50. O’Loughlin, Celtic Theology, p. 76; O’Loughlin, “Adomnán: A Man of Many Parts,” in O’Loughlin, Adomnán at Birr, pp. 41–51, at 46–47. See chapter 6. Jean-Michel Picard, “The Purpose of Adomnan’s Vita Columbae,” Peritia 1 (1982): 160–77. Bede, HE, 5.21. Ibid., 5.15. See chapter 6. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 436–37. Bede, HE, 5.15. Ibid., 3.25. Herbert, Iona, pp. 142–46; Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 287–88. Picard argues that Adomnán’s composition of the Vita Columba and his support of the saint illustrate that he did not adopt the Roman Easter dating. Picard, “The Purpose,” p. 166.


227

26. Sharpe, Adomnán, pp. 64–65. 27. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 288–89. 28. For instance, see Adomnán, VC, First and Second Prologue, 3.25. Sharpe, Adomnán, pp. 57–59. 29. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 191–93; Herbert, Iona, pp. 137–42; Stancliffe, “The Miracle Stories,” pp. 108–10. 30. Adomnán, VC, 2.34. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, p. 195. 31. Ibid., pp. 325–26. 32. For a translation of the cáin, see Ní Dhonnchadha, The Law of Adomnán, pp. 53–68. For a brief discussion of some of the cána in the early medieval period, see Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 559–69. 33. Ní Dhonnchadha, “Birr and the Law of the Innocents,” pp. 21–22. 34. Ní Dhonnchadha, “The Law,” pp. 63, 65. 35. Ibid., pp. 64–65; Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 567–68. 36. Sharpe, Adomnán, pp. 74–75. 37. These two options are briefly examined in Herbert, Iona, pp. 57–60. 38. Sharpe, Adomnán, p. 75. 39. Kirby, Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, pp. 5–6. 40. Bede, HE, 5.21, p. 276. 41. For place-name evidence, see Simon Taylor, “Place-Names and the Early Church in Eastern Scotland,” in Scotland in Dark Age Britain, edited by Barbara Crawford (Aberdeen: Scottish Cultural Press, 1996), pp. 93–110, at 101–02. 42. Smyth, Warlords, pp. 135–36. 43. Ní Dhonnchadha, “The Guarantor List,” p. 214. 44. Adomnán, VC, 2.46. 45. Taylor, “Place Names,” pp. 100–03; Simon Taylor, “Seventh-Century Iona Abbots in Scottish Place-Names,” in Broun and Owen, Spes Scotorum, pp. 35–70. 46. See, for example, Sally Foster, “The Strength of Belief: The Impact of Christianity on Early Historic Scotland,” in Religion and Belief in Medieval Europe, edited by Guy De Boe and Frans Verhaeghe (Zellik: Instituut voor het Archeologisch Patrimonium, 1997), pp. 229–240, at 233–35; Smyth, Warlords, pp. 138–39; Taylor, “Place Names,” pp. 99–100. 47. Kenneth Veitch, “The Columban Church in Northern Britain, 664–717: A Reassessment,” PSAS 127 (1997): 636–40. 48. For a discussion of Nechtan’s family tree, see Thomas Owen Clancy, “Philosopher-King: Nechtan mac Der Ilei,” SHR 88, no. 2 (2004): 125–49, at 127–43. 49. AU, 710.4, Clancy, “Philosopher-King,” pp. 131–33. 50. Bede, HE, 5.24; AU, 711.3. 51. AU, 713.7. 52. Clancy, “Philosopher-King,” pp. 138–43. Using place-name evidence, Taylor argues for Gaelic influence in the area around St. Andrews. See Taylor, “Place Names,” pp. 93–110. 53. AU, 739.7.

228


54. Clancy, “Philosopher-King,” pp. 133–35. 55. Ian N. Wood, “The Most Holy Abbot Ceolfrid,” Jarrow Lecture (1995): 6–14. 56. “Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. For seven days no yeast is to be within your houses” (Ex. 12:17–19, NIV). 57. Bede, HE, 5.21, p. 278. 58. Ibid., 5.21. 59. Ibid. 60. Ibid. 61. Ibid., p. 282. 62. Ibid., p. 283. 63. Ibid., p. 284. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid., p. 285. 66. Ibid., p. 284. 67. Ibid., p. 286. 68. Ibid., 5.22. 69. Ibid., 3.27. 70. D. P. Kirby, “Cuthbert, Boisil of Melrose,” p. 51. 71. AU, 717.4. 72. Sharpe, Adomnán, pp. 76–77; Smyth, Warlords, p. 139. 73. Foster, “The Strength of Belief,” pp. 234–35. 74. Clancy, “Philosopher-King,” pp. 141–43; Benjamin Hudson, “Kings and Church in Early Scotland,” SHR 73, no. 2 (1994): 145–70, at 151–53. 75. Foster, “The Strength of Belief,” pp. 235–38. 76. Smyth, Warlords, pp. 138–39. 77. Ibid., pp. 24–29; Rollason, Northumbria, pp. 85–89, 108; P. N. Wood, “On the Little British Kingdom of Craven,” NH 32 (1996): 1–20. 78. Louis Alexander, “The Legal Status of the Native Britons in Late SeventhCentury Wessex as Reflected by the Law Code of Ine,” Haskins Society Journal 7 (1995): 31–38. 79. K. R. Dark, Civitas to Kingdom (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1994), pp. 217–18, 227. 80. AC, 768. 81. Wendy Davies, Wales in the Early Middle Ages (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1982), pp. 160–61. 82. BrT, 770, p. 5. 83. Bede, HE, 5.18. 84. Davies, Wales, p. 161. 85. For a discussion on the lack of surviving documents, see Patrick Sims-Williams, “The Uses of Writing in Early Medieval Wales,” in Pryce, Literacy in Medieval Celtic Societies, pp. 15–38. 86. Dark, Civitas to Kingdom, pp. 223–25, 234.


229

87. For a brief overview of this theory, see Huw Pryce, “Pastoral Care in Early Medieval Wales,” in Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, pp. 41–62, at 48–49. 88. See, for instance, Davies, “The Myth,” pp. 12–21; Hughes, “The Celtic Church: Is This a Valid Concept?” pp. 1–20. 89. Pryce, “Pastoral Care,” pp. 49–55. 90. AC, 809. 91. Pryce, “Pastoral Care,” p. 61. 92. Colmán Etchingham, “Bishoprics in Ireland and Wales in the Early Middle Ages: Some Comparisons,” in Contrasts and Comparisons: Studies in Irish and Welsh Church History, edited by John Guy and W. G. Neely (Powys and Armagh: Welsh Religious History Society and the Church of Ireland Historical Society, 1999), pp. 7–25, at 22–25. 93. Stancliffe, “Christianity amongst the Britains,” p. 438. 94. Synod of North Britain, pp. 170–71; Synod of the Grove of Victory, pp. 171–72. 95. Synod of North Britain, 1. 96. Bede, HE, 2.2. 97. Ibid., 4.5. 98. Snyder, The Britons, pp. 137–38.

Chapter 10 1. Declercq, Anno Domini, pp. 160–64. 2. Contra Kenneth Harrison, “A Letter from Rome to the Irish Clergy, AD 640,” Peritia 3 (1984): 222–29, at 222. 3. For a discussion on the tendency to equate schismatic practices with heresy, see Gerald Bonner, “Dic Christi Veritas Ubi Nunc Habitas: Ideas of Schism and Heresy in the Post-Nicene Age,” in The Limits of Ancient Christianity, edited by William Klingshirn and Mark Vessey (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999), pp. 63–79. 4. Ibid., p. 68. 5. Columbanus, Ep., 1.5. 6. Bede, HE, 2.19. 7. Bede, Greater Chronicle, Year 4591. 8. Cummian, Letter, p. 75. 9. Bede, HE, 3.25. 10. Theodore, Penitential, 5.1–5, 7–14. 11. Aldhelm, Letter to Geraint, pp. 155–60. 12. Bede, HE, 5.23. 13. Ibid., 3.25; 5.21. 14. Ibid., 3.17. 15. Bede, Greater Chronicle, Year 4591. 16. Bede, HE, 3.4.

230 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

45. 46. 47. 48.

49. 50. 51. 52.

Notes to Pages 172–178 Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.9. Aldhelm, Letter to Geraint, pp. 156–57. Bede, HE, 3.25. Bede, HE, 5.21. CCH, 52.6.b. Bede HE, 5.21. Cummian, Letter, p. 95. Bede, HE, 3.25. Ibid., 2.19. Columbanus, Ep., 1.4. Bede, HE, 3.25. Cummian, Letter, pp. 91, 93. The Frankish Church had decided to adopt the Victorian table at the Council of Orléans in 541. Orléans c. 1. Davies, Wales, p. 161. Bede, HE, 2.2, 3.25, 4.5. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church, pp. 94–109. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, pp. 105–07, 133. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 278–81. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 276–77. Charles-Edwards, “Introduction,” pp. lxxiv–lxxvi; Etchingham, Church Organisation in Ireland, pp. 456–60. Bede, HE, 2.2. Pryce, “Pastoral Care,” pp. 41–62. Davies, “The Myth,” pp. 14–18; Snyder, The Britons, pp. 128–34. Herrin, The Formation, pp. 164–65; Mathisen, “Syagrius of Autun,” pp. 278–84. Stephanus, VW, 34. Columbanus, Eps., 5.10–12; Bracken, “Authority and Duty,” pp. 173–74, 178–79; Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church, pp. 110–11. Herrin, The Formation of Christendom, pp. 121–25. Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Theodore,” pp. 164–68; de Jong, “Transformations of Penance,” pp. 209–17; Meens, “Frequency and Nature,” pp. 47–55. Dunn, “Gregory the Great,” pp. 253–54. A number of these are discussed in Allen J. Frantzen, The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983). Charles-Edwards, “Britons in Ireland,” pp. 19–26. Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion, pp. 168–69; Ian N. Wood, The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe, 400–1050 (Essex: Pearson Education, 2001), pp. 145–56, 160–62; Richer, Ireland, pp. 124–34. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church, pp. 144–49. Wood, The Missionary Life, pp. 39–42. Ibid., pp. 150–52. Bede, HE, 5.22. Kirby, “Cuthbert, Boisil of Melrose,” pp. 51–53.


231

53. Bede, HE, 5.9–11; Richter, Ireland; pp. 148–52. 54. Yitzhak Hen, “The Liturgy of St. Willibrord,” ASE 26 (1997): 41–63, at 41–43. 55. For more information on these men, see Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion, pp. 193–227. 56. Columbanus, Ep., 2.5, p. 17. 57. Ibid., 2.9, p. 23. 58. Cummian, Letter, p. 81. 59. Ibid., pp. 73–75. 60. Charles-Edwards, “Britons,” pp. 16–17. 61. Ibid., pp. 19–26. 62. Sharpe, “Gildas,” pp. 200–02. 63. Dumville, “British Missionary Activity,” pp. 141–44. 64. Bernadette Cunningham and Raymond Gillespie, “The Cult of St David in Ireland before 1700,” in Contrasts and Comparisons: Studies in Irish and Welsh Church History, edited by John Guy and W. G. Neely (Powys, Armagh: Welsh Religious History Society and the Church of Ireland Historical Society, 1999), pp. 27–42. 65. Dumville, “British Missionary Activity,” p. 144. 66. CCH, 20.6. 67. CCH, 52.6.b. 68. Bede, HE, 2.4, 5.15. 69. Meek, The Quest, pp. 95–100.

Bibliography

Primary Documents Additamentum Nivialense de Fuilano. In Late Merovingian France, translated by Fouracre and Gerberding, 327–29 Adomnán. Life of St. Columba. Translated by Richard Sharpe. London: Penguin Books, 1995. Aldhelm. Letter to Geraint. In Aldhelm: The Prose Works, translated by Lapidge and Herren, 155–60. Anatolius. The Anti-Nicene Christian Pasch: De ratione paschali. Translated by Daniel McCarthy and Aidan Breen. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003. Annales Cambriae. In Nennius: British History and Welsh Annals, Edited and Translated by John Morris, London: Phillimore, 1980, 44–49, 85–91. The Annals of Inisfallen. Translated by Sean Mac Airt. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1988. Annals of Tigernach. Translated by Whitley Stokes. 2 vols. Felinfach, Lampeter: Llanerch Publishers, 1993. The Annals of Ulster. Translated by Sean Mac Airt and Gaeroid Mac Niocaill. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1983. Augustine. “Epistle to Januarius (55).” In Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff, 303–16. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956. Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Translated by Bertram Colgrave. Edited by Judith McClure and Roger Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. ———. The Greater Chronicle. In The Ecclesiastical History, edited by McClure and Collins, 307–340. ———. Letter to Egbert. In The Ecclesiastical History, edited by McClure and Collins, 343–357. Metrical Life of Cuthbert. See Werner Jaager. Bedas metrische Vita Sancti Cuthberti. Leipzig: Mayer and Müller, 1935. ———. Prose Life of Saint Cuthbert. In Two Lives, translated by Colgrave, 142–307. ———. The Reckoning of Time. Translated by Faith Wallis. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000. Benedict. The Rule of St. Benedict. Translated by Timothy Fry. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990. Book of the Angel. In The Patrician Texts, translated by Bieler, 184–91. Brut Y Tywysogyon. Translated by Thomas Jones. 2nd ed. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1973.

Bibliography

233

Codice Diplomatico del Monastero di S. Columbano di Bobbio. Edited by Carlo Cipolla. Vol. 1. Roma: Institutuo Storico Italiano, 1918. Cogitosus, Life of St. Brigit. See Sean Connolly and Jean-Michel Picard. “Cogitosus’s Life of St. Brigit.” JRSAI 117 (1987): 5–27. Collectio Canonum Hibernensis. Latin text in Die irische Kanonensammlung. Edited by F. W. H. Wasserschleben. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1885. Colman, Letter to Feradach. See Richard Sharpe, “An Irish Textual Critic and the Carmen Paschale of Sedulius: Colman’s Letter to Feradach.” JML 2 (1992): 44–54. Columbanus. Communal Rule (Regula Ceonobialis). In Sancti Columbani Opera, translated by Walker, 143–69. ———. Epistles. In Sancti Columbani Opera, translated by Walker, 2–59; translation of the letter to Gregory in Robert Stanton. “Letter 1: Translation and Commentary.” JML 3 (1993): 149–68. ———. Monks’ Rule (Regula Monachorum). In Sancti Columbani Opera, edited by Walker, 122–43. ———. Penitential. In Sancti Columbani Opera, edited by Walker, 168–81. Concilia Galliae A.511–695. Edited by C. de Clercq. Corpus Christanorum Series Latina 148 A. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1963. Constantius of Lyon. The Life of Saint Germanus of Auxerre. In Soldiers of Christ: Saints and Saints Lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, translated by F. R. Hoare, edited by Thomas F.X. Noble and Thomas Head, 75–106. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. Cummean. Penitential. In Medieval Handbooks, edited by McNeill and Gamer, 98–117. Cummian. Letter on the Paschal Controversy. In Cummian’s Letter De controversia Paschali Together with a Related Irish Computistical Tract De ratione conputandi, translated by Maura Walsh and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, 56–97. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1988. The Deeds of Aunemund. In Late Merovingian France, translated by Fouracre and Gerberding, 166–92. Donatus. The Rule of Donatus. In The Ordeal of Community, The Rule of Donatus of Besançon, The Rule of a Certain Father to the Virgins, translated by Jo Ann McNamara and John Halborg, 31–73. Toronto: Peregrina Publishing, 1993. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by G. A. Williamson. New York: Penguin, 1989. ———. Life of Constantine. In Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 405–610. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952. Reprint, 1961. Finnian. Penitential. In Medieval Handbooks, edited by McNeill and Gamer, 86–97. First Life of St. Brigit. See Sean Connolly. “Vitae Prima Sanctae Brigitae.” JRSAI 119 (1989): 5–49. First Synod of St. Patrick (Sinodus I S. Patricii). In Bieler, The Irish Penitentials, 54–59. Fredegar. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with Its Continuations. Translated by J. M. Wallace-Hadrill. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1960. Gildas. Preface on Penance. In Gildas: The Ruin of Britain and Other Works, Edited and translated by Michael Winterbottom, Totowa, NJ: Roman and Littlefield, 1978, 84–86. ———. The Ruin of Britain. In Gildas: The Ruin of Britain and Other Works, Edited and translated by Michael Winterbottom, Totowa, NJ: Roman and Littlefield, 1978, 13–79, 87–142.

234

Bibliography

Glossa in Psalmos: The Hiberno-Latin Gloss on the Psalms of Codex Palatinus Latinus 68. Translated by Martin McNamara. Studie e Testi 310. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1986. Gregory I. The Letters of Gregory the Great. Translated by John Martyn. 3 vols. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2004. ———. Pastoral Care. Translated by Henry Davis. New York: Newman Press, 1950. Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks. Translated by Lewis Thorpe. London: Penguin, 1974. Historia Brittonum. In Nennius: British History and Welsh Annals, Edited and translated by John Morris. London: Phillimore, 1980, 9–43, 50–84. Jerome. On Illustrious Men. Translated by Thomas Halton. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1999. Jonas. Life of Columbanus and His Disciples. Latin text Vitae Columbani Abbatis Discipulorumque eius. MGH: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in usum Scholarum, 37, edited by Bruno Krusch, pp. 1–294. Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1905; French translation. Vie de saint Colomban et de ses disciples, edited and translated by Adalbert de Vogüé, Aux sources due monachisme colombanien I. Bégrollesen-Mauges: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1988; English translation of book 1 in Monks, Bishops and Pagans: Christian Culture in Gaul and Italy, 500–700. edited by Edward Peters, 77–113. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1975. English translation of portions of book 2 see; “The Abbots of Bobbio, from The Life of St. Columbanus.” Translated by Ian Wood. In Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology, edited by Thomas Head, 111–35. New York: Routledge, 2000; Life of Burgundofara, Abbess of Faremoutiers. In Sainted Women, edited by McNamara and Halborg, 155–75. The Law of Adomnán. Translated by Máirín Ní Dhonnchadha. In Adomnán, edited by O’Loughlin, 53–68. Life and Miracles of Fursey. Latin text in Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae, edited by W. W. Heist, 37–50. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1965. Life of Amatus, Abbot of Remiremont. Latin text Vita Amati Abbatis Habendensis. In MGH, SRM 4, edited by Bruno Krusch, 215–21. Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1902. Life of Audoin, Bishop of Rouen. In Late Medieval France, translated by Fouracre and Gerberding, 133–65. Life of Balthild, Queen of Neustria. In Sainted Women, McNamara and Halborg, 264–78. Life of Fintán (Life of Munnu). Translated by John Hunt. In Celtic and Early Christian Wexford, AD 400–1066, edited by Edward Culleton, 144–25. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999. Life of Sadalberga, Abbess of Laon. In Sainted Women, McNamara and Halborg, 176–94. Life of Saint Cuthbert. In Two Lives, translated by Colgrave, 59–139. Life of St Samson of Dol. Translated by Thomas Tayler. Felinfach, Lampeter: Llanerch Press, 1991. Muirchú. Life of Patrick. In The Patrician Texts, translated by Bieler, 62–123. Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Translated by William Dudley, edited by Edward Peters. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. The Rule of a Certain Father to the Virgins. In The Ordeal of Community, The Rule of Donatus of Besançon, The Rule of a Certain Father to the Virgins, translated by

Bibliography

235

Jo Ann McNamara and John Halborg, 75–103. Toronto: Peregrina Publishing, 1993. Second Synod of St. Patrick (Sinodus II S. Patricii). In Bieler, The Irish Penitentials, 184–97. Stephanus. The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus. Translated by Bertram Colgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927. Reprint, 1985. The Suffering of Leudegar. In Late Merovingian France, translated by Fouracre and Gerberding, 193–53. The Suffering of Praejectus. In Late Merovingian France, translated by Fouracre and Gerberding, 264–300. The Synod of the Grove of Victory. In Medieval Handbooks, translated by McNeill and Gamer, 171–72. The Synod of North Britain. In Medieval Handbooks, edited by McNeill and Gamer, 170–71. Theodore. Penitential. In Medieval Handbooks, edited by McNeill and Gamer, 179–215. Tírechán. Collectanea. In The Patrician Texts, translated by Bieler, 123–67. Venantius Fortunatus. Personal and Political Poems. Translated by Judith George. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1995.

Secondary Sources Abels, Richard. “The Council of Whitby: A Study in Early Anglo-Saxon Politics.” JBS 23, no. 1 (1984): 1–25. Alexander, Louis. “The Legal Status of the Native Britons in Late Seventh-Century Wessex as Reflected by the Law Code of Ine.” Haskins Society Journal 7 (1995): 31–38. Bannerman, John. “Notes on the Scottish Entries in the Early Irish Annals.” In Studies in the History of Dalriada, edited by John Bannerman, 9–26. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1974. Bassett, Steven. “Church and Diocese in the West Midlands: The Transition from British to Anglo-Saxon Control.” In Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, 13–40. ———. “How the West Was Won: The Anglo-Saxon Takeover of the West Midlands.” In Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 11, edited by David Griffiths, 107–18. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology, 2000. ———. “Medieval Ecclesiastical Organisation in the Vicinity of Wroxeter and Its British Antecedents.” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 146 (1992): 1–28. Bedingfield, Brad. “Public Penance in Anglo-Saxon England.” ASE 31 (2002): 223–55. Berschin, Walter. “Opus deliberatum ac perfectum: Why Did the Venerable Bede Write a Second Prose Life of St. Cuthbert.” In Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, 95–102.

236

Bibliography

Bieler, Ludwig. The Irish Penitentials. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1963. ———. The Patrician Texts in the Book of Armagh. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1979. Bischoff, Bernhard, and Michael Lapidge. Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Blackburn, Bonnie and Leofranc Holford-Stevens. The Oxford Companion to the Year. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Blair, John. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Blair, John and Richard Sharpe. Pastoral Care Before the Parish. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1992. Bonner, Gerald. “Bede—Priest and Scholar.” Milltown Studies 39 (1997): 66–77. ———. “Bede: Scholar and Spiritual Teacher.” In Hawkes and Mills, Northumbria’s Golden Age, 365–70. ———. “Dic Christi Veritas Ubi Nunc Habitas: Ideas of Schism and Heresy in the Post-Nicene Age.” In The Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R. A. Markus, edited by William Klingshirn and Mark Vessay, 63–79. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999. ———. “ ‘The Holy Spirit Within’: St Cuthbert as a Western Orthodox Saint.” Sobornost 1, no. 1 (1979): 7–22. ———. “The Pelagian Controversy in Britain and Ireland.” Peritia 16 (2002): 144–55. ———. “Review of Michael W. Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity.” Peritia 16 (2002): 510–13. Bonner, Gerald, David Rollason, and Clare Stancliffe. St Cuthbert, His Cult and His Community to AD 1200. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1989. Bracken, Damian. “Authority and Duty: Columbanus and the Primacy of Rome.” Peritia 16 (2002). Bradley, Ian. Celtic Christianity: Making Myths and Chasing Dreams. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. Brennan, Brian. “The Image of the Merovingian Bishops in the Poetry of Venantius Fortunatus.” JMH 18 (1992): pp. 115–39. Brito-Martins, Manuela. “The Concept of Peregrinatio in St. Augustine and Its Influences.” In Exile in the Middle Ages, edited by Laura Napran and Elisabeth Van Houts, 83–94. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Brooks, Nicholas. “Canterbury, Rome and the Construction of English Identity.” In Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West, edited by Julia M. H. Smith, 222–46. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. “Canterbury and Rome: The Limits and Myth of Romanitas.” In Roma fra Oriente e Occidente, 797–832. Spoleto: Presso le Sede del Centro, 2002. ———. “The Formation of the Mercian Kingdom.” In The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, edited by Steven Bassett, 159–70. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1989. ———. “The Legacy of Saints Gregory and Augustine in England.” CCC 92 (1998): 45–59.

Bibliography

237

Brown, George Hardin. “Royal and Ecclesiastical Rivalries in Bede’s History.” Renascence 52, no. 1 (1999): 19–33. Brown, Peter. “The Decline of the Empire of God: Amnesty, Penance, and the Afterlife from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages.” In Last Things: Death and the Apocalypse in the Middle Ages, edited by Caroline Walker Bynum and Paul Freedman, 41–59. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000. ———. The Rise of Western Christendom. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. Bullough, Donald. “The Career of Columbanus.” In Lapdige, Columbanus, 1–28. Cahill, Michael. “The Introductory Material to an Early (Irish?) Commentary on Mark.” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 14, no. 1991 (1991): 93–114. ———. “Is the First Commentary on Mark an Irish Work?: Some New Considerations.” Peritia 8 (1994): 35–45. Carey, John, John Koch and Pierre-Yves Lambert. Ildánach Ildírech: a festschrift for Proinsias Mac Cana. Andover: Celtic Studies Publications, 1999. Charles-Edwards, Thomas. “Britons in Ireland, c. 550–800.” In Carey et al., Ildánach Ildírech, 14–26. ———. “The Church in the Early Irish Laws.” In Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, 63–80. ———. “The Construction of the Hibernensis.” Peritia 12 (1998): 209–37. ———. Early Christian Ireland. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ———. “Introduction.” In A New History of Ireland, vol. 1, edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, lvii–lxxxii. Oxford: Oxford University of Press, 2005. ———. “The Northern Lectionary: A Source for the Codex Salmanticensis?” In Celtic Hagiography and Saint’s Cults, edited by Jane Cartwright, 148–60. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2003. ———. “The Penitential of Columbanus.” In Lapidge, Columbanus, 217–39. ———. “The Penitential of Theodore and the Iudicia Theodori.” In Lapidge, Archbishop Theodore, 141–74. ———. “Review of Maura Walsh and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (ed), Cummian’s Letter De controversia Paschali Together with a Related Irish Computistical Tract De ratione conputandi.” Peritia 8 (1994): 216–20. ———. “Review of Michael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity.” EME 13, no. 4 (2005): 428–31. ———. “The Social Background to Irish Peregrinatio.” In The Otherworld Voyage in Early Irish Literature, edited by Jonathan Wooding, 94–109. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000. Chazelle, Celia. “Review of Michael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s, Christ in Celtic Christianity.” Speculum 79, no. 1 (2004): 201–03. Clancy, Thomas Owen. “Philosopher-King: Nechtan mac Der Ilei.” SHR 88, no. 2 (2004): 125–49. Clark, Gillian. “Pilgrims and Foreigners: Augustine on Traveling Home.” In Travel, Communication and Geography in Late Antiquity, edited by Linda Ellis and Frank Kidner, 149–58. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. Clarke, H. B. and Mary Brennan. Columbanus and Merovingian Monasticism. Oxford: B. A. R., 1981.

238

Bibliography

Coates, Simon. “The Bishop as Pastor and Solitary: Bede and the Spiritual Authority of the Monk-Bishop.” JEH 47, no. 4 (1996): 601–19. ———. “The Role of Bishops in the Early Anglo-Saxon Church: A Reassessment.” History 81 (1996): 177–96. ———. “Scissors or Sword: The Symbolism of a Medieval Haircut.” History Today 49, no. 5 (1999): 7–13. ———. “Venantius Fortunatus and the Image of Episcopal Authority in Late Antique and Early Merovingian Gaul.” EHR 65 (2000): 1109–37. Colgrave, Bertram. Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940. Reprint, 1985. Connolly, Hugh. The Irish Penitentials. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1995. Connolly, Sean “Vita Prima Sanctae Brigitae.” JRSAI 119 (1989): 5–49. Connolly, Sean and Jean-Michel Picard. “Cogitosus’s Life of St. Brigit.” JRSAI 117 (1987): 5–27. Corning, Caitlin. “The Baptism of Edwin, King of Northumbria: A New Analysis of the British Tradition.” NH 35, no. 1 (2000): 5–15. Cramer, Peter. Baptism and Change in the Early Middle Ages, c. 200-c. 1150. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Cramp, Rosemary. “The Making of Oswald’s Northumbria.” In Stancliffe and Cambridge, Oswald, 17–33. Cronin, Deborah. Holy Ground: Celtic Christian Spirituality. Nashville, TN: Upper Room Books, 1999. Cubitt, Catherine. “Images of St Peter: The Clergy and the Religious Life in AngloSaxon England.” In The Christian Tradition in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Paul Cavill, 41–54. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2004. ———. “Memory and Narrative in the Cult of Early Anglo-Saxon Saints.” In The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, edited by Yithak Hen and Matthew Innes, 29–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ———. “Wilfrid’s ‘Usurping Bishops’: Episcopal Elections in Anglo-Saxon England, c. 600–800.” NH 24 (1989): 18–38. Cunningham, Bernadette, and Raymond Gillespie. “The Cult of St David in Ireland before 1700.” In Contrasts and Comparisons: Studies in Irish and Welsh Church History, edited by John Guy and W. G. Neely, 27–42. Welshpool, Powys and Keady, Co.Armagh: The Welsh Religious History Society and The Church of Ireland Historical Soceity, 1999. Cuscito, Guiseppe. “La politica religiosa della corte Longobarda di fronte allo scisma dei Tre Capitoli.” In Atti del 6 Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’alto Medioevo, no editor, 373–81. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro Studi, 1980. Dark, K. R. Civitas to Kingdom. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1994. Davidse, Jan. “On Bede as Christian Historian.” In Houwen and MacDonald, Beda Venerabilis, 1–15. Davies, Luned Mair. “ ‘The Mouth of Gold’: Gregorian Texts in the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis.” In Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: Text and Transmission, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter, 249–67. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002.

Bibliography

239

Davies, Luned Mair. “Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua and the Gallic Councils in the Hibernensis.” Peritia 14 (2000): 85–110. Davies, Oliver. “Celtic Christianity: Texts and Representations.” In Celts and Christians, edited by Mark Atherton, 23–38. Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 2002. Davies, Wendy. “The Myth of the Celtic Church.” In The Early Church in Wales and the West, edited by Nancy Edwards and Alan Lane, 12–21. Oxford: Oxbow Press, 1992. ———. Wales in the Early Middle Ages. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1982. de Jong, Mayke. “Transformations of Penance.” In Rituals of Power from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, edited by Frans Theuws and Janet Nelson, 185–224. Leiden: Brill, 2000. de Vogüé, Aldabert. “The Master and St Benedict: A Reply to Marilyn Dunn.” EHR 107 (1992): 95–103. Deansesly, M. and P. Grosjean. “The Canterbury Edition of the Answers of Pope Gregory I to St Augustine.” JEH 10 (1959): 1–49. Declercq, Georges. Anno Domini: The Origins of the Christian Era. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. Dooley, Kate. “From Penance to Confession: The Celtic Contribution.” Bijdragen, tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie 43 (1982): 390–411. Driscoll, Michael. “Penance in Transition: Popular Piety and Practice.” In Medieval Liturgy, edited by Lizette Larson-Miller, 121–63. New York: Garland Publishing, 1997. Dumville, David. “British Missionary Activity in Ireland.” In Dumville, Saint Patrick, 133–45. ———. “Gildas and Uinniau,” in Lapidge and Dumville, Gildas, 207–14. ———. “Historia Brittonum: An Insular History from the Carolingian Age.” In Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, edited by Anton Scharer and Georg Scheibelreiter, 406–34. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994. ———. “Muirchu’s Life of St. Patrick from the Book of Armagh.” In Dumville, Saint Patrick, 203–219. ———. “St. Finnian of Movilla: Briton, Gael, Ghost?” In Down: History and Society, edited by L. Proudfoot, 71–84. Dublin: Geography Publications, 1997. ———. St. Patrick, AD 493–1993. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1993. ———. “St. Patrick at His First Synod?” In Dumville, Saint Patrick, 175–78. Dunn, Marilyn. The Emergence of Monasticism. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. ———. “Gregory the Great, the Vision of Fursey and the Origins of Purgatory.” Peritia 14 (2000): 238–54. ———. “The Master and St Benedict: A Rejoinder.” EHR 107 (1992): 104–11. ———. “Mastering Benedict: Monastic Rules and Their Authors in the Early Medieval West.” EHR 105 (1990): 567–94. Eby, John. “Bringing the Vita to Life: Bede’s Symbolic Structure of the Life of St. Cuthbert.” ABR 48, no. 3 (1997): 316–38. Elliott, J.K. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Eno, Robert. “Papal Damage Control in the Aftermath of the Three Chapters Controversy.” Studia Patristica 19 (1989): 52–56.

240

Bibliography

Etchingham, Colmán. “Bishoprics in Ireland and Wales in the Early Middle Ages: Some Comparisons.” In Contrasts and Comparisons: Studies in Irish and Welsh Church History, edited by John Guy and W. G. Neely, 7–25. Welshpool, Powys and Keady, Co. Armagh: The Welsh Religious History Society and the Church of Ireland Historical Society, 1999. ———. “Bishops in the Early Irish Church: A Reassessment.” Studia Hibernica 28 (1994): 35–62. ———. Church Organisation in Ireland. Maynooth: Laigin Publications, 1999. ———. “The Implications of Paruchia.” Eriu 44 (1993): 139–62. Etchingham, Colmán and Catherine Swift. “Early Irish Church Organisation.” Breifne 9 (2001): 285–312. Farmer, D.H., ed. The Age of Bede. London: Penguin, 1988. Ferreiro, Alberto. “A Reconsideration of the Celtic Tonsure and the Ecclesia Britoniensis in the Hispano Roman-Visigothic Councils.” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 23 (1991): 1–10. ———. “Sexual Depravity, Doctrinal Error, and Character Assassination in the Fourth Century: Jerome against the Priscillianists.” Studia Patristica 28 (1993): 29–39. ———. “Simon Magus: The Patristic Medieval Traditions and Historiography.” Apocrypha 7 (1996): 147–65. Fisher, J. D. C. Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West. London: SPCK, 1965. Flechner, Roy. “The Making of the Canons of Theodore.” Peritia 17–18 (2003–04): 121–43. Fletcher, Richard. The Barbarian Conversion. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Foley, Trent. “Suffering and Sanctity in Bede’s Prose Life of St. Cuthbert.” JTS n.s. 50, no. 1 (1999): 102–16. Foot, Sarah. “‘By Water in the Spirit’: The Administration of Baptism in Early Anglo-Saxon England.” In Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, 171–92. Foster, Sally. “The Strength of Belief: The Impact of Christianity on Early Historic Scotland.” In Religion and Belief in Medieval Europe, edited by Guy De Boe and Frans Verhaeghe, 229–240. Zellik: Instituut voor het Archeologisch Patrimonium, 1997. Fouracre, Paul. “Merovingian History and Merovingian Hagiography.” Past and Present 127 (1990): 3–38. ———. “Merovingians, Mayors of the Palace and the Notion of a ‘Low-Born’ Ebroin.” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 57, no. 1 (1984): 1–14. Fouracre, Paul, and Richard Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography, 640–720. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996. Frantzen, Allen J. The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983. Gameson, Richard. “Augustine of Canterbury: Context and Achievement.” In Gameson, St. Augustine, 1–49. ———. St. Augustine and the Conversion of England. Stroud: Sutton, 1999. ———. “Why Did Eadfrith Write the Lindisfarne Gospels?” In Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages, edited by Richard Gameson and Henrietta Leyser, 45–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Bibliography

241

Gardner, Rex. “The Departure of Paulinus from Northumbria: A Reappraisal.” Archaeologia Aeliana 5th series, 24 (1996): 73–77. Gaudemet, Jean and Brigitte Basdevant, trans. Les canons des conciles mérovingiens, VI–VII siècles, 353–54, 2 vols. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1989. Gauthier, Nancy. L’Évangélisation des pays de la Moselle. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1980. Geary, Patrick J. Before France and Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Gelling, Margaret. The West Midlands in the Early Middle Ages. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1992. George, Judith W. Venantius Fortunatus: A Latin Poet in Merovingian Gaul. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. ———. Venantius Fortunatus: Personal and Political Poems. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1995. Gneuss, Helmut, and Michael Lapidge. “The Earliest Manuscript of Bede’s Metrical Vita S. Cuthbercti.” ASE 32 (2003): 43–54. Goffart, Walter. “The Fredegar Problem Reconsidered.” Speculum 38, no. 2 (1963): 206–41. ———. “The Historia Ecclesiastica: Bede’s Agenda and Ours.” Haskins Society Journal 2 (1990): 29–45. ———. The Narrators of Barbarian History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. Grabowski, Kathryn and David Dumville. Chronicles and Annals of Mediaeval Ireland and Wales. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1984. Gray, Patrick, and Michael Herren. “Columbanus and the Three Chapters Controversy—A New Approach.” JTS n.s. 45, no. 1 (1994): 160–70. Handley, Mark. “The Origins of Christian Commemoration in Late Antique Britain.” EME 10, no. 2 (2001): 177–99. Harrington, Christina. Women in a Celtic Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Harrison, Kenneth. “Easter Cycles and the Equinox in the British Isles.” ASE 7 (1978): 1–8. ———. “Episodes in the History of Easter Cycles in Ireland.” In Whitelock, et al., Ireland, 307–19. ———. “A Letter from Rome to the Irish Clergy, AD 640.” Peritia 3 (1984): 222–29. Hawkes, Jane and Susan Mills. Northumbria’s Golden Age. Pheonix Mill, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 1999. Head, Thomas, ed. Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology. New York: Routledge, 2000. Heinzelmann, Martin. Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Hen, Yitzhak. Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul, A.D. 481–751. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. ———. “The Liturgy of St. Willibrord.” ASE 26 (1997): 41–63. Herbert, Máire. Iona, Kells and Derry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

242

Bibliography

Hen, Yitzhak. “Latin and Vernacular Hagiography of Ireland from the Origins to the Sixteenth Century.” In Hagiographics, edited by Guy Philippart, 328–42. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. Herren, Michael W. and Shirley Ann Brown. Christ in Celtic Christianity. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell, 2002. Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom. London: Fontana Press, 1987. Higgitt, John. “The Iconography of St Peter in Anglo-Saxon England, and St Cuthbert’s Coffin.” In Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, 267–85. Higham, N. J. The Convert Kings. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997. ———. “Dynasty and Cult: The Utility of Christian Mission to Northumbrian Kings between 642–654.” In Hawkes and Mills, Northumbria’s Golden Age, 95–104. ———. The English Empire. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995. ———. “Imperium in Early Britain: Rhetoric and Reality in the Writings of Gildas and Bede.” In The Making of the Kingdoms, edited by Tania Dickinson and David Griffiths, 31–36. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1999. ———. “King Cearl, The Battle of Chester and the Origins of the Mercian ‘Overkingship.’ ” Midland History 17 (1992): 1–15. ———. “King Edwin of the Deiri: Rhetoric and the Reality of Power in Early England.” In Early Deira, edited by Helen Geake and Jonathan Kenny, 41–49. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2000. ———. Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons. London: Seaby, 1992. Houwen, L. A. J. R. and A. A. MacDonald. Beda Venerabilis: Historian, Monk and Northumbrian. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1996. Howlett, D.R. The Book of Letters of Saint Patrick the Bishop. Portland, OR: Four Courts Press, 1994. ———. Cambro-Latin Compositions. Portland, OR: Four Courts Press, 1998. Howlett, David. “Two Works of Saint Columban.” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 28 (1993): 27–46. Hudson, Benjamin. “Kings and Church in Early Scotland.” SHR 73, no. 2 (1994): 145–70. Hughes, Kathleen. Celtic Britain in the Early Middle Ages. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1980. ———. “The Celtic Church and the Papacy.” In The English Church and the Papacy, edited by C. H. Lawrence, 1–28. London, 1965. Reprint, 1999. ———. “The Celtic Church: Is this a Valid Concept?” CMCS 1 (1981): 1–20. ———. The Church in Early Irish Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1966. ———. “Synodus II s. Patricii.” In Latin Script and Letters, edited by John O’Meara and Bernd Naumann, 141–47. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Ireland, Colin. “Aldfrith of Northumbria and the Irish Genealogies.” Celtica 22 (1991): 64–78. James, Edward. “Bede and the Tonsure Question.” Peritia 3 (1984): 85–98. ———. The Franks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. Reprint, 1994. Jaski, Bart. “Cú Chuimne, Ruben and the Compilation of the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis.” Peritia 14 (2000): 51–69.

Bibliography

243

Johnson, Maxwell. The Rites of Christian Initiation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999. Jones, Charles. “The Victorian and Dionysiac Paschal Tables in the West.” Speculum 9, no. 4 (1934): 408–21. Kelly, Joseph. “The Letter of Columbanus to Gregory the Great.” In Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo, 213–23. Rome: Institutum Patristicum, 1991. Kirby, D. P. “Bede, Eddius Stephanus and the ‘Life of Wilfrid.’ ” EHR 98 (1983): 101–14. ———. Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum: Its Contemporary Setting. Jarrow: St Paul’s Church Lecture, 1992. ———. “Cuthbert, Boisil of Melrose and the Northumbrian Priest Ecgberht: Some Historical and Hagiographical Connections.” In Richter and Picard, Ogma, 48–53. ———. The Earliest English Kings. London: Routledge, 1991. Reprint, 1992. ———. “The Genesis of a Cult: Cuthbert of Farne and Ecclesiastical Politics in Northumbria in the Late Seventh and Early Eighth Centuries.” JEH 46, no. 3 (1995): 383–97. Lapidge, Michael. Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on His Life and Influence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ———. “Bede’s Metrical Vita S. Cuthberti.” In Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, 77–93. ———. “The Career of Archbishop Theodore.” In Lapidge, Archbishop Theodore, 1–29. ———. Columbanus: Studies on the Latin Writings. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1997. ———. “Gildas’s Education and the Latin Culture of Sub-Roman Britain.” In Lapidge and Dunville, Gildas, 27–50. Lapidge, Michael, and David Dumville. Gildas: New Approaches. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1984. Lapidge, Michael and Michael Herren. Aldhelm: The Prose Works. Ipswich: D. S. Brewer, 1979. Laynesmith, Mark. “Stephen of Ripon and the Bible: Allegorical and Typological Interpretations of the Life of St. Wilfrid.” EME 9, no. 2 (2000): 163–82. Le Duc, Gwenaël. “Irish Saints in Brittany: Myth or Reality?” In Carey et al., Studies in Irish Hagiography, 93–119. Lebecq, Stéphane. “England and the Continent in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries: The Question of Logistics.” In Gameson, St Augustine, 50–67. Lutterkort, Karl. “Beda Hagiographicus: Meaning and Function of Miracle Stories in the Vita Cuthberti and the Historia Ecclesiastica.” In Houwen and MacDonald, Beda Venerabilis, 81–106. Lynch, Joseph. Christianizing Kinship. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998. Mackey, James P. “The Theology of Columbanus.” In Irland und Europa im früheren Mittelalter: Bildung und Literatur, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter, 228–39. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1996. MacLean, Douglas. “The Date of the Ruthwell Cross.” In The Ruthwell Cross, edited by Brendan Cassidy, 49–70. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1992. Macquarrie, Alan. The Saints of Scotland. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers, 1997.

244

Bibliography

Maher, Michael. “Peregrinatio pro Christo: Pilgrimage in the Irish Tradition.” Milltown Studies 43 (1999): 5–39. Márkus, Gilbert. “Iona: Monks, Pastors and Missionaries.” In Broun and Clancy, Spes Scotorum, 115–38. Markus, R. A. Gregory the Great and His World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ———. “Ravenna and Rome, 554–604.” In From Augustine to Gregory the Great, edited by R. A. Markus, XIV, 566–78. London: Variorum Reprints, 1983. Mathisen, Ralph. “Syagrius of Autun, Virgilius of Arles, and Gregory of Rome: Factionalism, Forgery, and Local Authority at the End of the Sixth Century.” In L’Église et la mission au VIe siècle, edited by Christophe de Dreuille, 260–90. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000. McCarthy, Daniel. “The Chronological Apparatus of the Annals of Ulster AD 82–1019.” Peritia 16 (2002): 256–83. ———. “The Chronological Apparatus of the Annals of Ulster, AD 431–1131.” Peritia 8 (1994): 47–79. ———. “The Chronology of the Irish Annals.” PRIA 98 C, no. 6 (1998): 203–55. ———. “The Chronology and Sources of the Early Irish Annals.” EME 10, no. 3 (2001): 323–41. ———. “Easter Principles and a Fifth-Century Lunar Cycle Used in the British Isles.” Journal of the History of Astronomy 24, no. 3 (1993): 204–24. ———. Irish Chronicles and Their Chronology. 2005. https://www.cs.tcd.ie/ Dan.McCarthy/chronology/synchronisms/annals-chron.htm (accessed 2005). ———. “On the Shape of the Insular Tonsure.” Celtica 24 (2003): 140–67. ———. “The Origin of the Latercus Paschal Cycle of the Insular Celtic Churches.” CMCS 28, no. 2 (1994): 25–49. ———. “The Original Compilation of the Annals of Ulster.” Studia Celtica 38 (2004): 69–96. McCarthy, Daniel and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín. “The ‘Lost’ Irish 84-Year Easter Table Rediscovered.” Peritia 6–7 (1987/88): 227–42. McCarthy, Daniel and Daniel Breen. “Astronomical Observations in the Irish Annals and Their Motivation.” Peritia 11 (1997): 1–43. McClure, Judith and Roger Collins, eds. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Reprint, 1999. McKillop, Sybil. “A Romano-British Baptismal Liturgy?” In The Early Church in Western Britain and Ireland, edited by Susan Pearce. Oxford: Oxford Publishing Press, 1982. McNamara, Jo Ann and John Halborg. Sainted Women of the Dark Ages. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992. McNamara, Martin. “The Bible in Academe and in Ecclesia: Antiochene and Early Irish Exegesis of Messianic Psalms.” Milltown Studies 39 (1997): 112–29. ———. “The Irish Tradition of Biblical Exegesis.” In Iohannes Scottus Eriugena: The Bible and Hermeneutics, edited by Gerd Van Riel, Carlos Steel, and James McEvoy, 25–54. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ———. “The Psalms in the Irish Church.” In The Bible as Book: The Manuscript Tradition, edited by John Sharpe and Kimberly Van Kampen, 89–103. London: British Library, 1998.

Bibliography

245

McNamara, Martin. “Tradition and Creativity in Early Irish Psalter Study.” In Irland und Europa: Die Kirche im Frühmittelalter, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter, 338–89. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984. McNeill, John and Helena Gamer. Medieval Handbooks of Penance. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938. Reprint, 1990. Meek, Donald. “Between Faith and Folklore: Twentieth-Century Interpretations and Images of Columba.” In Broun and Clancy, Spes Scotorum, 253–70. ———. The Quest for Celtic Christianity. Millfield: Handsel Press, 2000. Meens, Rob. “A Background to Augustine’s Mission to Anglo-Saxon England.” ASE 23 (1994): 5–17. ———. “Frequency and Nature of Early Medieval Penance.” In Handling Sin: Confession in the Middle Ages, edited by Peter Biller and Alastair Minnis, 35–61. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 1998. ———. “The Oldest Manuscript Witness of the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis.” Peritia 14 (2000): 1–19. Meyvaert, Paul. “Diversity within Unity, A Gregorian Theme.” In Benedict, Gregory, Bede and Others, edited by Paul Meyvaert, VI, 141–62. London: Variorum Reprints, 1977. Miller, Molly. “Bede’s Use of Gildas.” EHR 90, no. 2 (1975): 241–61. Mitchell, Kathleen and Ian Wood, eds. The World of Gregory of Tours. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Moisl, Hermann. “The Bernician Royal Dynasty and the Irish in the Seventh Century.” Peritia 2 (1983): 103–26. Moreton, Jennifer. “Doubts about the Calendar: Bede and the Eclipse of 664.” Isis 89 (1998): 50–65. Nelson, Janet. “Queens as Jezebels: Brunhild and Balthild in Merovingian History.” In Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, edited by Janet Nelson, 1–48. London: Hambledon Press, 1986. Newlands, Carole. “Bede and Images of Saint Cuthbert.” Traditio 52 (1997): 73–109. Ní Dhonnchadha, Máirín. “Birr and the Law of the Innocents.” In O’Loughlin, Adomnán, 13–32. ———. “The Guarantor List of the Cain Adomnain, 697.” Peritia 1 (1982): 178–215. ———. “The Law of Adomnán: A Translation.” In O’Loughlin, Adomnán, 53–68. Noble, Thomas F. X. “Gregory of Tours and the Roman Church.” In The World of Gregory of Tours, edited by Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood, 145–61. Leiden: Brill, 2002. O’Connell, D. J. “Easter Cycles in the Early Irish Church.” JRSAI 66 (1936): 67–105. O’Keeffe, J. G. “The Rule of Patrick.” Eriu 1 (1904): 216–24. O’Loughlin, Thomas. “Adomnán: A Man of Many Parts.” In O’Loughlin, Adomnán, 41–51. ———. Celtic Theology. London: Continuum, 2000. ———. “ ‘A Celtic Theology’: Some Awkward Questions and Observations.” In Identifying the “Celtic,” edited by Joseph Falaky Nagy, 49–65. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002.

246

Bibliography

O’Loughlin, Thomas. Discovering Saint Patrick. New York: Paulist Press, 2005. ———. “Penitentials and Pastoral Care.” In A History of Pastoral Care, edited by G.R. Evans, 93–111. London: Cassell, 2000. Ó Carragáin, Eamonn. “The Necessary Distance: Imitatio Romae and the Ruthwell Cross.” In Hawkes and Mills, Northumbria’s Golden Age, 191–203. Ó Cróinín, Dáibhí. “Mo-Sinnu moccu Min and the Computus of Bangor.” Peritia 1 (1982): 281–95. ———. “ ‘New Heresy for Old’: Pelagianism in Ireland and the Papal Letter of 640.” Speculum 60, no. 3 (1985): 505–16. ———. “A Seventh-Century Irish Computus from the Circle of Cummianus.” PRIA 82C, no. 11 (1982): 405–30. ———. “Who was Palladius ‘First Bishop of the Irish?’ ” Peritia 14 (2000): 205–37. Ó Néill, Pádraig. “Irish Transmission of Late Antique Learning: The Case of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Psalms.” In Chatháin and Richter, Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, 68–77. ———. “Romani Influences on Seventh-Century Hiberno-Latin Literature.” In Chatháin and Richter, Irland und Europe, 280–90. Ó Riain, Pádraig. “Finnio and Winniau: A Return to the Subject.” In Carey et al. Ildánach Ildírech, 188–201. Pelteret, David. “St Wilfrid: Tribal Bishop, Civic Bishop or Germanic Lord?” In The Community, the Family and the Saint, edited by Joyce Hill and Mary Swan, 159–80. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998. Picard, Jean-Michel. “Princeps and Principatus in the Early Irish Church: A Reassessment.” In Seanchas: Studies in Early and Medieval Irish Archaeology, History, and Literature in Honour of Francis J. Byrne, edited by Alfred P. Smyth, 146–60. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000. ———. “The Purpose of Adomnan’s Vita Columbae.” Peritia 1 (1982): 160–77. Pontal, Odette. Die Synoden im Merowingerreich. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1986. ———. Histoire des conciles mérovingiens. Paris: Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes (CNRS), 1989. Price, Richard. “Informal Penance in Early Medieval Christendom.” In Retribution, Repentance, and Reconciliation, edited by Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory, 29–38. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004. Prinz, Friedrich. “Columbanus, the Frankish Nobility and the Territories East of the Rhine.” In Clarke and Brennan, Columbanus, 73–87. ———. Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1965. Pryce, Huw. “Pastoral Care in Early Medieval Wales.” In Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, 41–62. Quensel-von Kablen, Lucas. “The British Church and the Emergence of AngloSaxon Kingdoms.” In The Making of Kingdoms, edited by Tania Dickinson and David Griffiths, 89–97. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1999. Reynolds, Roger. “The Transmission of the Hibernensis in Italy: Tenth to the Twelfth Century.” Peritia 14 (2000): 20–50.

Bibliography

247

Richards, Jeffrey. Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great. London: Routledge, 1980. ———. The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages. London: Routledge, 1979. Riche, Pierre. “Columbanus, His Followers and the Merovingian Church.” In Clarke and Brennan, Columbanus, 59–72. Richter, Michael “Dating the Irish Synods in the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis.” Peritia 14 (2000): 70–84. ———. Ireland and Her Neighbours in the Seventh Century. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1999. Richter, Michael and Jean-Michel Picard. Ogma: Essays in Celtic Studies in Honour of Próinséas Ní Chatháin. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002. Rollason, David. Northumbria, 500–1000: Creation and Destruction of a Kingdom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ———. “Why Was St. Cuthbert so Popular?” In Cuthbert: Saint and Patron, edited by David Rollason, 9–22. Durham: Dean and Chapter of Durham, 1987. Rosenthal, Joel. “Bede’s Life of Cuthbert: Preparatory to the Ecclesiastical History.” Catholic Historical Review 68 (1982): 599–617. Rosenwein, Barbara H. “Inaccessible Cloisters: Gregory of Tours and Episcopal Exemption.” In Mitchell and Wood, The World of Gregory of Tours, 181–97. ———. Negotiating Space: Power, Restraint, and Privileges of Immunity in Early Medieval Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Sayers. “Early Irish Attitudes towards Hair and Beards, Baldness and Tonsure.” Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 44 (1991): 154–89. Sellner, Edward. The Wisdom of the Celtic Saints. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1993. Sharpe, Richard. Adomnan of Iona: Life of St. Columa. New York: Penguin, 1995. ———. “Armagh and Rome in the Seventh Century.” In Chatháin and Richter, Irland und Europa, 58–72. ———. “Churches and Communities in Early Medieval Ireland: Towards a Pastoral Model.” In Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, 81–109. ———. “An Irish Textual Critic and the Carmen Paschale of Sedulius: Colman’s Letter to Feradach.” JML 2 (1992): 44–54. ———. “Martyrs and Local Saints in Late Antique Britain.” In Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West, edited by Alan Thacker and Richard Sharpe, 75–154. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. ———. Medieval Irish Saints’ Lives. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. ———. “Vitae S Brigidae: The Oldest Texts.” Peritia 1 (1982): 81–106. Sheehy, Maurice. “Influence of Ancient Irish Law on the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis.” In Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Medieval Canon Law, edited by Stephan Kuttner, 31–41. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1971. Sims-Williams, Patrick. “Celtomania and Celtoscepticism.” CMCS 36 (1998): 1–35. ———. Religion and Literature in Western England, 600–800. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ———. “The Uses of Writing in Early Medieval Wales.” In Literacy in Medieval Celtic Societies, edited by Huw Pryce, 15–38. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

248

Bibliography

Sims-Williams, Patrick. “The Visonary Celt: The Construction of an Ethnic Preconception.” CMCS 11 (1986): 71–96. Smyth, Alfred. Warlords and Holymen: Scotland AD 80–1000. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1984. Reprint, 1989. Snyder, Christopher. An Age of Tyrants. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, 1998. ———. The Britons. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Snyder, Graydon. Irish Jesus, Roman Jesus. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002. Stancliffe, Clare. “Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish.” Jarrow Lecture (2003): 1–49. ———. “The British Church and the Mission of Augustine.” In Gameson, St Augustine, 107–51. ———. “Christianity amongst the Britons, Dalriadan Irish and Picts.” In The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 1, edited by Paul Fouracre, 426–61. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ———. “Columbanus and the Gallic Bishops.” In Auctoritas: Mélanges offerts à Olivier Guillot, edited by Giles Constable and Michel Rouche, 205–15. Paris: Press de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2006. ———. “Cuthbert and the Polarity between Pastor and Solitary.” In Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, 21–44. ———. “Jonas’ Life of Columbanus and His Disciples.” In Carey et al., Studies in Irish Hagiography, 189–220. ———. “Kings and Conversion: Some Comparisons between the Roman Mission to England and Patrick’s to Ireland.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 14 (1980): 59–94. ———. “The Miracles Stories in Seventh-Century Irish Saints’ Lives.” In Le Septiéme siécle: changements et continuities, edited by Jacques Fontaine and J. N. Hillgarth, 87–115. London: Warburg Institute, 1992. ———. “Oswald, ‘Most Holy and Most Victorious King of the Northumbrians.’ ” In Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint, edited by Clare Stancliffe and Eric Cambridge, 33–83. Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1995. ———. “Red, White and Blue Martyrdom.” In Whitelock et al., Ireland, 21–46. ———. “Religion and Society in Ireland.” In The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 1, edited by Paul Fouracre, 397–425. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ———. “Review of Richard Sharpe’s Medieval Irish Saints’ Lives.” JTS n.s. 44, no. 1 (1993): 378–83. Stanton, Robert. “Columbanus, Letter 1: Translation and Commentary.” JML 3 (1993): 149–68. Steel, Duncan. Marking Time: The Epic Quest to Invent the Perfect Calendar. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. Stevens, Wesley. “Cycles of Time: Calendrical and Astronomical Reckonings in Early Science.” In Cycles of Time and Scientific Learning in Medieval Europe, I, 27–51. Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum, 1995. Stevenson, Jane, “Introduction.” In F. E. Warren, The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, 2nd ed., ix–cxxviii. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1987. ———. The “Laterculus Malalianus” and the School of Archbishop Theodore. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Bibliography

249

Taylor, Simon. “Place-Names and the Early Church in Eastern Scotland.” In Scotland in Dark Age Britain, edited by Barbara Crawford, 93–110. Aberdeen: Scottish Cultural Press, 1996. ———. “Seventh-Century Iona Abbots in Scottish Place-Names.” In Broun and Clancy, Spes Scotorum, 35–70. Thacker, Alan. “Bede’s Ideal of Reform.” In Ideal and Reality in Frankish and AngloSaxon Society, edited by Patrick Wormald, 130–53. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. ———. “Bede and the Irish.” In Houwen and MacDonald, Beda Venerabilis, 31–59. ———. “In Search of Saints: The English Church and the Cult of Roman Apostles and Martyrs in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries.” In Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West, edited by Julia M. H. Smith, 247–77. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. “Lindisfarne and the Origins of the Cult of St Cuthbert.” In Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, 103–22. Thomas, Charles. Christianity in Roman Britain to AD 500. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1981. Thompson, E.A. Saint Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain. Woodbridge Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1984. Van Dam, Raymond. Saints and Their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. Veitch, Kenneth. “The Columban Church in Northern Britain, 664–717: A Reassessment.” PSAS 127 (1997): 627–47. Vogel, Cyrille. Les Libri paenitentiales, Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental; fasc. 27. Turnhout: Brepols, 1978. Walker, G. S. M., ed. Sancti Columbani Opera, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 2. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1957. Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People: A Historical Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. ———. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar, with Its Continuations. London, New York: Nelson, 1960. ———. The Frankish Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. ———. The Long-Haired Kings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982. Wallis, Faith. Bede: The Reckoning of Time. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000. Warren, F. E. The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church. 2nd ed. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1987. Whitaker, E. C. Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy. Revised by Maxwell Johnson. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Whitlock, Dorothy, Rosamond McKitterick, and David Dumville. Ireland in Early Mediaeval Europe: Studies in Memory of Kathleen Hughes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Wickham, Chris. Early Medieval Italy. London: MacMillan Press, 1981. Willis, G. G. A History of Early Roman Liturgy to the Death of Pope Gregory the Great. London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 1994. Winkler, Gabriele. “Confirmation or Chrismation?: A Study in Comparative Liturgy.” In Living Water, Sealing Spirit, edited by Maxwell Johnson 202–18. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995.

250

Bibliography

Wood, Ian N. “Administration, Law and Culture in Merovingian Gaul.” In The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe, edited by Rosemond McKitterick, 63–81. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ———. “Augustine and Aidan: Bureaucrat and Charismatic?” In L’Église et la mission au VIe siècle, edited by Christophe de Dreuille, 148–79. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000. ———. “Augustine and Gaul.” In Gameson, St. Augustine, 68–82. ———. “Augustine’s Journey.” CCC 92 (1998): 28–44. ———. “Fredegar’s Fables.” In Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, edited by Anton Scharer and George Scheibelreiter, 359–66. München: R. Oldenbourg, 1994. ———. “The Irish and Social Subversion in the Early Middle Ages.” In Irland, Gesellschaft und Kultur, edited by Dorothea Siegmund-Schultze, 263–70. Halle: Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1989. ———. “Jonas of Bobbio, the Abbots of Bobbio, from The Life of St. Columbanus.” In Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology, edited by Thomas Head, 111–35. New York: Routledge, 2000. ———. “Jonas, the Merovingians, and Pope Honorius: Diplomata and the Vita Columbani.” In After Rome’s Fall: Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History, edited by Alexander Murray, 99–120. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. ———. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. New York: Longman, 1994. ———. The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe, 400–1050. Essex: Pearson Education, 2001. ———. The Most Holy Abbot Ceolfrid, Jarrow: St. Paul’s Church Lecture, 1995. ———. “Some Historical Re-Identifications and the Christianization of Kent.” In Christianizing People and Converting Individuals, edited by Guyda Armstrong and Ian N. Wood, 27–35. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. ———. “The Use and Abuse of Latin Hagiography in the Early Medieval West.” In East and West: Modes of Communication, edited by Evangelos Chrysos and Ina N. Wood, 93–109. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. “The Vita Columbani and Merovingian Hagiography.” Peritia 1 (1982): 63–80. Wood, P. N. “On the Little British Kingdom of Craven.” NH 32 (1996): 1–20. Wooding, Jonathan. “Review of Michael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity.” Medieval Review (2005). http://name.umdl.umich.edu/ baj9928.0509.007. Woolf, Alex. “Caedualla Rex Brettonum and the Passing of the Old North.” NH 49, no. 1 (2004): 5–24. World Council of Churches. Aleppo Statement, 1997. http://www.wcc-coe.org/ wcc/what/faith/easter.html. (accessed 2005). Wright, Neil. “Columbanus’s Epistulae.” In Lapidge, Columbanus, 29–92. ———. “Gildas’s Prose Style.” In Lapidge and Dumville, Gildas, 107–28. Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Seaby, 1990. Reprint, 1997. Ziegler, Michaelle. “The Politics of Exile in Early Northumbria.” The Heroic Age 2 (1999). www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2pen.htm

Index

abbas, definition of, 98 Abelenus, bishop of Geneva, 49–50, 53–4, 204n45 Acca, bishop of Hexham, 116, 117–18 Adaloald, king of the Lombards, 56 Adomnán, abbot of Iona, 96, 151–6, 160–1, 164, 168, 173 Law of, 100, 155, 156, 157 Life of Columba, 152, 153, 154–5, 156, 157 Æthelbald, king of Mercia, 118 Æthelberht, king of Kent, 70, 77–8, 79 Æthelfrith, king of Northumbria, 71, 112, 174, 217n1 Agilbert, bishop of the West Saxons and later of Paris, 117, 121, 122, 124, 125 Agatho, pope, 124, 135 Agilulf, king of Lombards, 22, 41 Agrestius, monk of Luxeuil, 48–51, 53, 54, 56, 58 Aidan, bishop of the Northumbrians, 114, 116, 119, 128, 138, 140, 144, 145, 147, 149, 172 Alban, martyr, 67 Albinus, abbot of Sts. Peter and Paul, Canterbury, 69 Aldfrith, king of Northumbria, 136, 151–2, 226n10 Aldhelm, abbot of Malmesbury, bishop of Sherborne, 133–4, 148, 165, 171, 172 Alhfrith, sub-king of Deira, 113, 117, 121–2, 123, 124, 127, 141

Amatus, abbot of Remiremont, 58 Ambrosiaster, Book of Questions, 85, 212n20 Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea, 27–8, 198n30, 212n29 On the Pasch, 28, 29, 86–7, 124–5, 125–6, 127, 170, 177, 198n30 Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals), 151, 165, 167 Annals of Inisfallen, 151 Annals of Tigernach, 151 Annals of Ulster, 150–1, 163 Aquileian schism, see Three Chapters controversy Arians, 22, 31, 40, 41, 55, 56, 57 Arioald, king of the Lombards, 55, 56 Armagh, 89, 96, 100, 102, 108–9, 153, 163, 171 Athala, abbot of Bobbio, 29, 47, 49, 56, 57, 59, 61 Athanasius, Life of Anthony, 142, 144–5, 154 Audoin, bishop of Rouen, 37, 122 Augustine, bishop of Canterbury, 65, 68, 70–81, 144, 167–8, 174, 175 Augustine, bishop of Hippo, 11, 13, 17, 86, 144, 209n40 Aunemundus, bishop of Lyons, 117, 137 Bangor, monastery, 17, 22, 82–3 Balthild, wife of Clovis, 48 Bangor-is-Coed, monastery, 71, 175 Baptism, 73–6, 80

252

Index

Basil, bishop of Caesarea, on penance, 16 Béccán, hermit, 84, 85, 101 Bede, 68–9 and the British Church, 70–3, 76, 115, 116 and Church reform, 114–15, 119 and Cuthbert, 114, 130, 142–5, 146, 147 and the Easter controversy, 7, 9, 11, 70, 73, 79, 80, 81–2, 83–4, 89, 91, 159–60, 171–2 Ecclesiastical History, 69–70, 71–3, 74–5, 79, 81–2, 83–4, 89, 91, 145–8, 152–3, 159–61, 171–2 Greater Chronicle, 83 and Iona, 114–16, 119, 171–2 Letter to Egbert, 114–15 metrical Life of Cuthbert, 142, 144 prose Life of Cuthbert, 142–5 The Reckoning of Time, 70, 83 and Wilfrid, 146–7, 148, 149 Benedict Biscop, abbot of Wearmouth, 68, 117 Benedict of Nursia, 144, 145, 154, 155 Rule of, 60–1, 63, 119, 128, 129, 135, 137, 138–9, 141–2 Bernicia, kingdom of, 66, 112 Bertulf, abbot of Bobbio, 45, 47, 55–6, 61 Birr, synod of, 155, 175 see also Adomnán bishops in the British Church, 167–8 in the Frankish Church, 36–9 in Ireland, 96–7, 99–102, 108–10 Bobbio, monastery, 24, 38, 52–3, 55–7, 59, 60–1, 63, 64, 84, 102, 171 Boniface, pope, 32, 33, 38, 56 Book of the Angel, 96, 109 Bosa, bishop of York, 139 Brigit of Kildare, 96 British Church and Augustine, 70–1, 73–9, 80 baptism, 73–6, 80

Bede’s attitude toward, 70–3, 115, 116, 171–2 and the Easter controversy, 73, 78–9, 133–4, 148, 164–6, 168 missions, 65–7, 76–7, 80 organization, 167–8, 174–5 survival of, 65–8 Bruide, king of the Picts, 157, 158 Brunhild, Merovingian queen, 22, 24, 34–6, 37, 39–40, 50, 53, 65, 83, 137, 175, 200n77 Brut y Tywysogyon (Chronicle of the Princes), 151, 165 Burgundofara, abbess of Faremoutiers, 47, 57 Burgundofaro, bishop of Meaux, 47 Burgundy, kingdom of, 19, 23, 29, 34, 35, 38, 53–4 Cadwallon, king of Gwynedd, 112 Caesarius, bishop of Arles, 79, 205n81 Cáin Adomnáin, see Adomnán Cassian, John, 15, 60 Cathach of St. Columba, 106 Cedd, bishop of the East Saxons, 120, 124 Celtic Church, popular understanding of, 1–4, 37, 39, 94, 95, 96–7, 167, 180–1 Celtic-84 table, see Easter tables Celtic tradition, definition of, 4, 18 Cenél Comgaill, 157, 158 Cenwealh, king of the West Saxons, 122 Ceolfrid, abbot of Wearmouth-Jarrow Letter to Nechtan, 13, 14, 92, 153, 156–62, 170, 171, 172, 173 Ceolred, king of Mercia, 118 Ceolwulf, king of Northumbria, 113 Chad, bishop of York and later of Mercia, 135, 138 Chagneric, count of Meaux, 47 Chagnoald, bishop of Laon, 47 Chalon, Council of, see councils Childebert II, king of Burgundy and Neustria, 22, 37, 39

Index Chilperic I, king of Soissons, 37 Chlothar II, king Neustria, then Burgundy and Austrasia, 22, 24, 35, 36, 37, 41, 49, 53–4 Chronicle of Fredegar, 21–2, 46, 53 Clovis II, king of Neustria and Burgundy, then Austrasia, 35 Cœnred, king of Northumbria, 118 Cogitosus, Life of Brigit, 96 Collectio Canonum Hibernensis, 95–6, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103–5, 107–9, 172–73, 180 Colmán, bishop of the Northumbrians, 114, 117, 122, 123, 124–7, 129, 147, 154, 173, 174 Colmán, Irish cleric Letter to Feradach, 105 Columba, abbot of Iona, 17, 116, 124–5, 126, 127, 151, 154–5, 156, 157, 168, 173 Life of, see Adomnán Columbanus, abbot, 17, 22–4, 81–2, 137 and bishops, 37–40, 47, 48 and the Easter controversy, 24–30, 43–4, 78, 83, 86, 170, 173 letters, 21, 26–30, 32–3, 170, 172, 178–9 Life of, see Jonas and monarchs, 34–6, 40–1, 43 and the nobility, 47, 48 and the papacy, 32–3, 107, 176 penitential, 15–16, 41–3, 177, 179, rules, 57–61, 63, 64 Conamail, abbot of Iona, 156 Constantius of Lyons, Life of Germanus, 67, 71–2, 154–5 councils, 174–5 of Antioch, 86 of Chalcedon, 31 of Chalon, 21, 28–9, 35–6, 37–8, 40, 44, 51–2, 175, 178–9 of Clichy, 53 First Council of Constantinople, 30 Second Council of Constantinople, 31

253

of Hertford, 132, 134, 168, 174 of Nicaea, 5, 11–12, 30, 83, 86, 87, 125, 126–7, 132, 134, 173 see also synods Cú Chuimne of Iona, 96, 105 Cummian, abbot, Letter on the Easter controversy, 84–8, 92, 93–4, 101, 107, 170–1, 173–4, 179 Cuthbert, bishop of Lindisfarne, 115, 130, 135, 139–45, 146, 147, 148, 223n63 coffin, 142, 223n68 Lives of, 130, 141–45, 147, 148, 154 Dado see Audoin Dagán, Irish bishop, 81–2, 134, 170 Dagobert I, king of Austasia, then Neustria and Burgundy, 24, 35, 48 Dál Ríata, kingdom of, 66, 110, 114, 115, 129, 150, 155, 157, 158, 164 Deira, kingdom of, 66, 112, 121 Desiderius, bishop of Vienne, 36, 37, 137, 175 Dionysius Exiguus, 7 Dionysian table, see Easter tables Diuma, bishop of Mercia, 120 doctores, see scholars Donatus, bishop of Besançon, 60, 204n45 rule of, 60, 61, 205n81 Dorbéne, abbot of Iona, 156 Dumnonia, kingdom of, 66, 133 Dunchad, abbot of Iona, 15 Dyfed, kingdom of, 66, 134, 167 Eanflæd, wife of Oswiu, 113, 117 Eanfrith, king of Bernicia, 112, 113 Easter controversy and Bede, 7, 9, 11, 70, 73, 79, 80, 81–2, 83–4, 89, 91, 159–60, 171–2 and the British Church, 73, 78–9, 133–4, 148, 164–6, 168

254

Index

Easter controversy––continued calculating the date of, 5–8, 12 and the Church fathers, 5, 11, 13, 17–18, 30, 44, 85–6, 127, 173, 176 and Columbanus, 24–30, 43–4, 78, 83, 86, 170, 173 and Cummian, 84–8, 92, 93–4, 101, 107, 170–1 dark Easter, 26–7, 29, 38, 41, 43, 73, 78, 80, 123, 131, 169 heresy, 51, 72, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 91–3, 105, 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 127–8, 129, 131–5, 137–8, 140, 148, 152–3, 154, 155, 169, 170–1 and the Irish Church New Testament, 10, 18, 29, 86, 116, 125, 126, 159 Old Testament, 10, 18, 27, 29, 71, 85, 125, 159, 161, 179 and the Picts, 156–62, 163–4 and the papacy, 7, 27, 30, 83–4, 89–93, 118, 131, 148, 170, 172 practical issues, 9, 13, 18, 73, 93, 127, 154, 169 symbolism, 5, 10–11, 18, 27, 73, 80, 92, 131, 160, 169 theological issues, 9–13, 18, 29, 71, 73, 85, 86, 116, 125, 126, 159, 161 Easter tables Celtic-84, 8, 10, 11, 12, 25, 27–8, 29–30, 38, 45–6, 51–3, 73, 79–80, 83, 85–7, 89–93, 105, 108–10, 116, 118, 119, 123–6, 127–8, 131–5, 140, 144, 148, 152, 153–4, 159–60, 161, 162–3, 165–6, 170–1, 183–90, 193n36 Dionysian, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 70, 73, 82–3, 87, 91–3, 105, 108, 109–10, 114, 115, 117, 123–4, 125–6, 127, 131, 132, 134, 141, 142, 147, 152, 153–4,

156, 162–3, 165–6, 173, 183–90 Latercus, see Celtic-84 Nicene, 87 Victorian, 7–8, 11, 12, 25–30, 43–4, 51–3, 73, 79–80, 83, 84, 85–7, 89–93, 123–4, 131, 142, 160, 170–1, 183–6, 193n33, 209n44 Eata, bishop of Lindisfarne and Hexham, 139, 141, 143 eccles (ecclesia), place name, 67 Ecgberht, see Egbert Ecgfrith, king of the Northumbrians, 113, 135, 136, 137, 146–7, 152, 176 Eddius Stephanus, see Stephanus Edwin, king of Northumbria, 76, 112, 113, 114, 120, 121 Egbert, bishop of York, 114 Egbert, priest, Northumbrian peregrinus, 162, 178 Egidius, bishop of Rheims, 37 Elfoddw, archbishop of Gwynedd, 165, 167, 174 Eligius, bishop of Noyon, 37 Erchinoald, Neustrian maior, 62 Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 28 Life of Constantine, 11–12 Eustasius, abbot of Luxeuil, 45, 47, 48–55, 56, 58 exemptions, see privileges Fáelchú, abbot of Iona, 150, 156 familia, definition of, 98–9 Faremoutiers, convent, 23, 45, 47, 48, 57, 60 Faro, bishop of Meaux, see Bugundofaro Finán, bishop of the Northumbrians, 120, 122–3, 147 Finnian, bishop, 15, 42, 67, 179, 195n85

Index Fintán, abbot of Taghmon, 88–9 First Synod of St. Patrick, see synods Foillán, abbot of Péronne and Fosses, 62 Frankish Church and the Columbanian tradition, 22–6, 28–30, 34–5, 37–40, 41, 43–4, 47–55, 57–8, 83, 137 councils, 21, 25, 28–9, 35–6, 37–8, 40, 42–3, 44, 48–55, 174–5 and the Easter controversy, 24–30, 40–1, 44, 51–3, 82 episcopal authority, 36–9 Fredegar, Chronicle of, 21–2, 46, 53 Fursey, Irish peregrinus, 17, 62–3, 178 Geraint, king of Dumnonia, 133–4 Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, 67, 71–2, 154 Gildas, British ascetic penitential, 15, 67, 179 The Ruin of Britain, 67, 68, 71, 80 Gregory, bishop of Tours Ten Books of Histories (History of the Franks), 14, 21, 25, 32 Gregory the Great, pope, 39, 74–5, 102 and Columbanus, 26–8, 32, 170 Dialogues, 144, 154 humility, 37–8, 78, 102 Libellus Responsionum, 68, 74, 77–9, 144 mission to the Anglo-Saxons, 65, 69–70, 74–5, 77–9, 81, 82, 114 Pastoral Care, 37–8, 107 Grimoald, Austrasian maior, 62 Gundoin, duke, 47 hairstyles, symbolism of, 13 see also tonsures Heavenfield, battle of, 112, 218n5 Herefrith, abbot of Lindisfarne, 144 heresy, see Easter controversy Hexham, church of, 66, 116, 136, 139, 141

255

Hibernenses, see Irish Church Hibernensis, see Collectio Canonum Hibernensis Hild, abbess of Whitby, 124, 174 Honorius, I, pope and Bobbio, 38, 47, 55–7, 171 letter to the Irish Church, 83–4, 88, 91, 92, 93, 118, 170, 172 and the Lombards, 56–7 Hwicce, kingdom of, 66, 70, 76 Ibas of Edessa, 31 Iona, monastery, 66, 100–1, 108, 109–10, 147, 171–2 and the Easter controversy, 84–8, 89–93, 105, 148, 151–6, 162–4, 168, 170–1, 178 mission to Northumbria, 114–16, 119, 122, 128, 129, 139, 144 and the Picts, 157, 158, 160–1, 162–4 see also individual abbots Irish Church and the Easter controversy, 81–94, 105, 108–9, 151–6, 162–4 “Irish” party or Hibernenses, 102–8, 175 organization, 96–102 “Roman” party or Romani, 102–8, 175 synods, 85, 88–91, 93–4, 100, 155, 175 Itta, mother of the Austrasian maior Grumoald, 62 Iurmenburgh, queen of Northumbria, 135–6, 137 Jarrow, monastery, 66, 68–9, 70, 158 Jerome, 28, 30, 85–6, 127, 170, 177 On Illustrious Men, 28 Jezebel, 34, 36, 135, 137, 200n77, 222n32 John IV, pope, 89–93, 94, 101, 115, 118, 151, 171, 172, 173, 176

256

Index

Jonas of Bobbio, 20 Life of Columbanus and his Disciples, 20, 22, 24, 33–6, 39–40, 43, 45–6, 47–58, 61, 63, 137, 153, 172 Jouarre, monastery, 23, 48, 122 Justus, bishop of Rochester, 79, 81 Kent, kingdom of, 4, 65, 66, 69, 79, 132 Kildare, church, 90, 96, 100, 102, 108–9 Killian, 178 Laisrén, abbot of Leighlin, 88–9 Lagny, monastery, 23, 62 Latercus, see Easter tables Laurence, bishop of Canterbury, 79, 80, 81–2, 93, 134, 170, 172 Law of Adomnán (Innocents), see Adomnán Leudegar, bishop of Autun, 137 Lindisfarne, church, 66, 114, 115, 119, 120, 121, 128, 129, 130, 138, 139–45, 147 Lombards, 4, 22–4, 31, 40–1, 43, 55–7 Luxeuil, monastery, 22, 23, 24, 29, 35, 46, 48–55, 58, 60, 61–2, 63, 102, 140 see also individual abbots Mâcon, Synod of, see synods Mag Léne, Synod of, see synods Magonsæte, kingdom of, 66, 76 maior, definition of, 53 Martin, bishop of Tours, Lives of, 142, 154 Mellitus, bishop of London, 79, 80, 81–82 Melrose, monastery, 66, 121, 141, 143–4 Mercia, kingdom of, 66, 112, 118, 120, 121, 132, 135, 165

monachus, definition of, 98 monastic rules, see rules Mo-Sinu maccu Min, abbot of Bangor, 82–3, 106 Muirchú, Life of Patrick, 96 Nechtan, king of the Picts, 13, 156–61, 163–4, 174 Nennius, History of the Britons, 76, 151 Nestorius/Nestorian, 31, 199n49 Neustria, kingdom of, 23, 36, 41, 53, 62 Nicaea, Council of, see councils Nivelles, monastery, 23, 62 Northumbria, kingdom of, 9, 66, 75, 76, 112–14, 115, 116, 118, 120–2, 129, 131, 135–6, 137, 140, 151–2, 157–8, 164–5 Nothelm, archbishop of Canterbury, 69, 70 Origen of Alexandria, 85 Osred, king of Northumbria, 113, 118, 150, 158 Osric, king of Deira, 112, 113 Osric, king of Northumbria, 113, 118 Oswald, king of Northumbria, 112–14, 120, 122 Oswine, king of Deira, 113, 120, 121 Oswiu, king of Northumbria, 112, 113, 114, 117, 120–2, 126, 127, 129, 131–2, 158 papacy, 1, 4, 5, 19, 27, 30–3, 55–7, 65, 73, 74, 77, 83–4, 85, 87, 89, 91–3, 94, 107, 111, 118, 127, 131, 134, 136, 148, 176 paruchia, 97, 98, 100, 175, 180 Paschal controversy, see Easter controversy Passover, definition of, 10, 27 Patrick, 17, 62, 67, 96, 97, 108, 109, 179, 196n106

Index Paulinus, bishop of Northumbria, 76, 114 Pelagius/Pelagian heresy, 67, 71–2, 92, 93, 131, 160, 171, 209n40, 213n45 penance, 9, 17, 18, 63, 64, 104, 132–3, 134, 138, 148, 167, 171 private, 14–17, 43–2, 44, 62–3, 177 public, 14–15, 42 Penda, king of Mercia, 112, 120, 121 penitentials, 15–17, 18, 44, 62–3, 67, 68, 104, 180 Penitential of Columbanus, 15–16, 41–3, 177, 179 Penitential of Theodore, 132–3, 138, 148, 171 peregrinatio, 17, 18, 63, 64, 177–8 see also individual peregrini Péronne, monastery, 23, 62 Picts, 66, 156–62, 163–4, 170, 174 pilgrimage, see peregrinatio popes see papacy and individual popes Praetextatus, bishop of Rouen, 37 princeps, definition of, 97–8, 101 privileges, 38–9, 47, 55–6, 57, 84, 102, 171 Probus, bishop of Tortona, 55, 57 Purgatory, 63, 177 Quartodecimanism, 83, 91–2, 93, 118–20, 127–8, 132–3, 134, 135, 137–8, 148, 170–71, 172 Rebais, monastery, 23, 47–8 Remiremont, monastery, 23, 47, 58, 59, 61 Rhun, possibly king of Rheged, 76 Ríagail Phátraic (the Rule of Patrick), 96 Ripon, church, 66, 117, 121, 122, 135, 136, 141, 143, 147, 158 “Roman” party in the Irish Church, see Irish Church Roman tradition, definition of, 4

257

Romani, see Irish Church Romaric, abbot of Remiremont, 58 Rónán, Irishman active in Northumbria, 120, 123 Rubin of Dairinis, 96 rules, monastic of Benedict, 60, 63, 119, 128, 129, 135, 137, 138, 139, 141–2, 155 of Columbanus, 22, 40, 47, 48, 49, 57–62, 63, 129 Donatus, Rule for Nuns, 60, 61, 205n81 mixed rules, 40, 48, 60–1, 63, 129 Rule of the Master, 61 Sadalberga, abbess of Laon, 47 saints’ Lives, see individual Lives Samson, bishop of Dol, 17, 179 scholar, ecclesiastical, 27, 28, 71, 89, 101, 106, 167–8, 173, 174, 175 Second Council of Constantinople, see councils Ségéne, abbot of Iona, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93, 151, 170–1, 173–4, 179, 226n7 Sigibert I, king of Rheims, 24, 35 Sigibert, II, king of Austria and Burgundy, 24, 35 Simon Magus, heretic, 13, 14, 104, 133, 134, 160–1, 172, 173, 180 Sinilis, see Mo-Sinu maccu Min Sinodus Hibernensis, see synods Sinodus Romana, see synods Sixtus, martyr, 68 Solignac, monastery, 23, 48 Stephanus, 116–17, 219n23 Life of Wilfrid, 114, 116–20, 122, 126–9, 135–9, 143, 158, 171, 176, 222n32 Sulpicius, bishop of Bourges, 37 Sulpicius Severus 84-year paschal cycle, 8 Life of Martin of Tours, 142, 154

258

Index

Swithhelm, king of the East Saxons, 120 synods, 174–5 of Arles, 86 of Austerfield, 136, 138–9 of Birr, 100, 155, 175 First Synod of St. Patrick, 96 of the Grove of Victory, 67, 167 “Irish” synod (Sinodus Hibernensis), 103, 104–5, 107–8, 111, 171, 175 of Mâcon, 46, 48–55, 174 of Mag Léne, 85, 88, 89, 93, 101 of Mag nAilbe, 88–9, 93 of Nidd, 136 of North Britain, 67, 167 of Orleans, 25 “Roman” synod (Sinodus Romana), 103, 104–5, 107–8, 109, 111, 171, 175 Second Synod of St. Patrick, 96, 98 of Whitby, 114, 116, 117, 121–9, 130, 149, 154, 158, 161, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174 see also councils Talorg, son of Drostan, 158 Tatberht, abbot of Ripon, 116, 117–18 Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, 96, 108, 132–3, 135, 136, 139, 145, 146–7, 174, 176 Penitential of Theodore, see penitentials Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, 31 Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, 31 Theuderic II, king of Burgundy, 22, 24, 34, 35–6, 39, 50, 53, 82, 175 Theudebert, king of Austrasia, 22, 24, 41 Three Chapters controversy, 31, 33, 40, 49, 56, 176 Tírechán, Collectanea, 96

Tómíne, bishop of Armagh, 89 tonsure Celtic, 13–14, 49, 50–1, 61, 75, 104, 114, 115, 121, 133, 172–3 Roman, 13, 18, 63, 64, 70, 102, 104, 114, 117, 119, 139, 141, 142 symbolism of, 13–14, 133, 134, 160–1, 172–3 Treticus, bishop of Lyons, 54 túath, Irish kingdom, 99, 100 Uinniau, see Finnian Ultán, abbot of Péronne and Fosses, 62 Venantius Fortunatus, Gallic poet, 20, 36–7 Victorius of Aquitaine, 7–8, 28, 44, 91, 193n33 Victorian table, see Easter tables Vitalian, pope, 131–2 Waldebert, abbot of Luxeuil, 47, 61 Warnachar, Burgundian maior, 49, 50, 53–4 Wearmouth, monastery, 66, 68–9, 117 Welsh Annals (Annales Cambriae), 151, 165 Whitby, Synod of, see synods Wilfrid, abbot and bishop, 117, 136–8, 143, 158 Bede’s attitude toward, 146–7, 149 and the Easter controversy, 121–2, 125–7, 128–9, 173, 174 and Lindisfarne, 139–40, 141, 142, 143 and the Roman traditions, 118, 119–20, 128–9, 130, 138–9, 141–2, 145, 155, 171 see also Stephanus Willibrord, archbishop of Utrecht, 178

The Celtic and Roman Traditions: Conflict and Consensus in the Early Medieval Church

Roman Barbarians: The Royal Court and Culture in the Early Medieval West (Medieval Culture and Society)

Roman Barbarians: The Royal Court and Culture in the Early Medieval West (Medieval Culture and Society)

The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire

Cooperation, Conflict and Consensus in the Organization of American States

Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony

The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West

The Early Church

Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War

The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church

Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions

Rome in the Bible and the Early Church

The Seven Deadly Sins (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions)

Contradiction and conflict: the popular church in Nicaragua

Education And Politics For The 1990s: Conflict Or Consensus?

Women, Gender and Radical Religion in Early Modern Europe (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions)

Recruitment, Conquest, and Conflict: Strategies in Judaism, Early Christianity, and the Greco-Roman World (Emory Studies in Early Christianity)

Recruitment, Conquest, and Conflict. Strategies in Judaism, Early Christianity, and the Greco-Roman World (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 6)

Celtic women - Roman ladies

Pension Politics : Consensus and Social Conflict in Ageing Societies

Psalms in the Early Irish Church

Ambrose (The Early Church Fathers)

Tertullian (The Early Church Fathers)

Origen (The Early Church Fathers)

Outlaws in Medieval and Early Modern England

Mozarabs in Medieval and Early Modern Spain

Holiness and Politics in Early Medieval Thought

Saving the Souls of Medieval London (Church, Faith and Culture in the Medieval West)

The Celtic and Roman Traditions: Conflict and Consensus in the Early Medieval Church

Roman Barbarians: The Royal Court and Culture in the Early Medieval West (Medieval Culture and Society)

Roman Barbarians: The Royal Court and Culture in the Early Medieval West (Medieval Culture and Society)

The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire

Cooperation, Conflict and Consensus in the Organization of American States

Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony

The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West

The Early Church

Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War

The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church

Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions

Rome in the Bible and the Early Church

The Seven Deadly Sins (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions)

Contradiction and conflict: the popular church in Nicaragua

Education And Politics For The 1990s: Conflict Or Consensus?

Women, Gender and Radical Religion in Early Modern Europe (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions)

Recruitment, Conquest, and Conflict: Strategies in Judaism, Early Christianity, and the Greco-Roman World (Emory Studies in Early Christianity)

Recruitment, Conquest, and Conflict. Strategies in Judaism, Early Christianity, and the Greco-Roman World (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 6)

Celtic women - Roman ladies

Pension Politics : Consensus and Social Conflict in Ageing Societies

Psalms in the Early Irish Church

Ambrose (The Early Church Fathers)

Tertullian (The Early Church Fathers)

Origen (The Early Church Fathers)

Outlaws in Medieval and Early Modern England

Mozarabs in Medieval and Early Modern Spain

Holiness and Politics in Early Medieval Thought

Saving the Souls of Medieval London (Church, Faith and Culture in the Medieval West)

Recommend Documents