20. celtic and roman traditions conflict in early medieval churc

The Celtic and Roman Traditions

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page i

This page intentionally left blank

The Celtic and Roman Traditions

Conflict and Consensus in the Early Medieval Church

CAITLIN CORNING

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page iii

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 byPALGRAVE MACMILLAN™175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 and Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England RG21 6XSCompanies and representatives throughout the world.

PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the PalgraveMacmillan 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: 978–1–4039–7299–6ISBN-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 1–4039–7299–01. Celtic Church. 2. Church history—Middle Ages, 600–1500. 3. Church

controversies—Europe—History—To 1500. I. Title.

BR748.C67 200674�.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.

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page iv

For my motherCorlee Corning

andin loving memory of my father

Robert Corning

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page v

Contents

List of Maps viii

List of Illustrations ix

List of Abbreviations x

Preface xii

1. Introduction 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

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page vii

List of Maps

2.1 Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy 234.1 Britain 665.1 Ireland 90

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page viii

List of Illustrations

Tables

1.1 Comparison of Easter tables 82.1 Simplified Merovingian family tree 242.2 Comparative Easter dates, 590–608 252.3 Sunset and moonrise, Paris, France, March/April 2005 263.1 Comparative Easter dates, 620–41 526.1 Comparative Easter dates, 680–89 1107.1 Northumbrian family tree 1137.2 Comparative Easter dates, 661–66 1249.1 Ceolfrid’s description of Biblical dates 1599.2 Comparative Easter dates, 710–23 1639.3 Comparative Easter dates, 765–70 166

Figure

1.1 Phases of the moon 6

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page ix

List of Abbreviations

AC Annales CambriaeABR American Benedictine ReviewAdomnán, VC Life of ColumbaAnonymous, VC Life of CuthbertASE Anglo-Saxon EnglandATig Annals of TigernachAU Annals of UlsterAVC Anonymous Life of CuthbertBede, HE Ecclesiastical History of the English PeopleBede, PVC Prose Life of CuthbertBede, Reckoning The Reckoning of TimeBrT Brut y TywysogyonCCC Canterbury Cathedral ChronicleCCH Collectio Canonum HibernensisCHR Catholic Historical ReviewCMCS Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies (nos. 1–25),

continued as Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies(nos. 26–)

Columbanus, Ep(s) EpistlesEHR English Historical ReviewEME Early Medieval EuropeGregory, History History of the Franks/Ten Books of HistoryHB Historia BrittonumJBS Journal of British StudiesJEH Journal of Ecclesiastical HistoryJMH Journal of Medieval HistoryJML Journal of Medieval LatinJRSAI Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of IrelandJTS Journal of Theological Studies

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page x

MGH:SRM Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores RerumMerovingicarum

NH Northern HistoryPRIA Proceedings of the Royal Irish AcademyPSAS Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of ScotlandSHR Scottish Historical ReviewStephanus, VW Life of Wilfrid

List of Abbreviations xi

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page xi

Preface

Since the 1970s and then especially with the publication of KathleenHughes’ groundbreaking article, “The Celtic Church: Is This a ValidConcept?” scholars have been reassessing much of what was understoodabout the “Celtic Church.”1 In recent decades, many new theories havebeen proposed and scholars have abandoned the term Celtic Church believ-ing it to be too closely associated with inaccurate ideas.

At the same time, the Celtic Church remains a fashionable topic outsideof academic circles. A quick search of the internet produces an abundanceof links to Celtic spirituality seminars, sites detailing the “history” of theCeltic Church and Celtic Christian denominations. The number of bookspublished each year by popular presses on these topics demonstrates thatthe interest in all things Celtic remains high. Yet, this curiosity with Celtichistory and culture has done little to advance an accurate understanding ofthe early medieval Celtic tradition among nonspecialists, since the popularbooks rarely reflect recent scholarship and depend instead upon othernonspecialists or out-of-date scholarly articles and books.

This book is a short introduction to current scholarly opinion anddebate about some aspects of the Celtic tradition for the nonspecialist. Thefocus of this study is the interactions between the Celtic and Roman tradi-tions in Merovingian Gaul, Lombard Italy, and the British Isles during theperiod of the Easter controversy. From 600 to 768, one of the definingissues between these two groups was the conflict over how to correctly cal-culate the date of Easter. While not the sole concern of this study, the Eastercontroversy provides the chronological framework and a foundation uponwhich to analyze the ways in which these two traditions influenced andtransformed each other.

This study has three main goals. First, it provides the nonspecialist witha more accurate understanding of aspects of the Celtic tradition, both itsunique characteristics and the many areas of similarity it shared with thebroader early medieval Church. Second, the Easter controversy provides anexcellent case study for how the early medieval Church in the West solveddisputes over divergent practices. Third, this book should allow the reader

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page xii

Preface xiii

to gain a better understanding of the available primary sources and the com-plexities involved in using these documents to reconstruct the period.

This book assumes some knowledge of medieval history and an under-standing of basic Christian theology, but no specialized training in thetopic. Due to the intended audience, all quotes have been translated intoEnglish, as have the titles for most of the primary documents. English-language secondary sources have been used whenever possible.

In addition, to aid the reader, I have departed occasionally from schol-arly norms. For instance, it is the custom to list lunar days with Romannumerals (luna xiv). However, since many readers may be unaccustomed toworking with these, all lunar dates have been converted to Arabic numbers.Along these same lines, more popular versions of personal names have beenincluded: Columba rather than Colum Cille, Edwin rather than Eadwine,and Brunhild instead of Brunechildis. In addition, in the bibliography, thetitles of most primary documents have been translated into English tomatch the usage within the text.

As with all projects of this sort, there are numerous people to whom I ammuch in debt. First to Drs. Christina Roseman and Alberto Ferreiro whonurtured my initial interest in medieval studies and have supported methroughout my career. Ian Wood, Clare Stancliffe, Thomas Charles-Edwards, and the anonymous reader reviewed draft chapters and providedinvaluable criticism and suggestions. My thanks also to Seth Martin, mystudent assistant, who went well above the call of duty for this project; toMegan Weber and John Knox who designed the maps and charts; and tomy students who read draft chapters and asked important questions. Last,but certainly not least, my sincere thanks to my family and friends who overthe years have patiently listened to my complaints about Bede and havelearned much more about the Easter controversy than they ever could haveimagined.

1403972990ts01.qxd 18/7/06 9:18 PM Page xiii

Chapter 1

Introduction

Ask many people browsing through popular books on Celtic Christianity todescribe the Celtic Church and several well-known ideas will probablyemerge. They might state, for instance, that the Celtic Church did notacknowledge papal authority and was less authoritarian and bureaucraticthan the Roman Church because it was guided by holy abbots, rather thanbishops. Depending on their interests, they might add that it allowedwomen more power than was customary at the time, it was environmentallyfriendly, it was continually influenced by native paganism, or that the Irishhad a special link with the spiritual realm. Simply stated, most would agreethat the Roman and Celtic Churches were inherently dissimilar and inconflict throughout the Middle Ages until the Roman Church conqueredand suppressed the Celtic tradition.1

Ask most medievalists who specialize in the churches of theCeltic-speaking lands from the sixth through eighth centuries this samequestion and a remarkably different picture emerges. While there were pow-erful and influential abbots in the Irish Church, there were also importantbishops.2 In addition, the churches in the British Kingdoms—usually anarea included in the term “Celtic Church”—were organized on an episcopalmodel closely resembling that used elsewhere in Europe. Those in Celtic-speaking regions acknowledged and respected the papacy as much as anyarea 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 inthe Celtic-speaking lands were not united in opposition to the “Roman”Church. The early medieval Church was very diverse. Liturgies, monasticrules, and other issues of interest to Christians were not monolithic, but

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 1

varied regionally. Just as there are recognizable differences in the CatholicChurch in America and France today, not all the traditions in Ireland,Merovingian Gaul, and Visigothic Spain were identical. There were, to usemodern terms, “local theologies” or “micro-Christendoms.”4 This does notmean, however, that Christians identified themselves as members of aChurch separate from and in opposition to Rome; it is simply a reflectionof the diversity of local practices throughout Europe at this time.5

Christians in the West were united in major aspects of theology and thedoctrinal decisions of the early ecumenical councils. In the Celtic-speakingareas, people would not have thought to identify themselves as part of the“Celtic Church.” Likewise, their counterparts in Merovingian Gaul orVisigothic Spain would not have spoken about the “Continental Church.”Rather all considered themselves part of the universal Church whose differ-ences lay solely in cultural locality.

Brief Overview of Modern Celtic Christianity

Historians of the modern Celtic phenomenon have identified at least threemain branches of thought that have influenced the more fashionablenotions of the Celtic Church today.6 The first began during theReformation when the Church of England broke from Rome and the splitneeded justification. One way to do this was to identify a strand ofChristianity more indigenous to the British Isles, one which was in oppositionto the papacy, and of course, was proto-Protestant in thought. Therefore,the Church of England was not a new institution, but a restoration of thetrue Church in the British Isles.7 This same appeal to a pure tradition,separate from Rome, influenced the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh in the post-Reformation 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 intellectu-als looked back at what had been lost to modernization. Not only did they seeexamples of primitive, isolated cultures in Africa or the East, but in theIrish and Scottish Highlanders as well.10 Separated from the intricacies ofIrish culture, these men imagined that the Irish led simple, unchanginglives influenced by superstitious beliefs. This is why historians could usenineteenth-century prayers or hymns as evidence for the spirituality of thesixth and seventh centuries. In the uncultured Irish or Scottish peasant it wasas though one could gain a glimpse of a distant, unobtainable past.

The Celtic and Roman Traditions2

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 2

Coupled with this assumption was the notion that each national/ethnicgroup had its own unchanging characteristics. Within this, the Celts werecharacterized as “emotional, visionary and non-rational” in addition tobeing “spiritual, impractical, rural, natural, and poetic.”11 Thus, theirmystical nature, combined with living on the very periphery of Europe,ensured that the Celts had nurtured a version of Christianity that was sim-plistic and spiritual, rejecting all dogmatic or authoritarian structures. In itsessence then, Celtic Christianity was in opposition to the rationalist,authoritarian Rome and fought continually to maintain its distinctive formof Christianity.12 Although finally subjugated by the Roman Church in theseventh century, the true spirituality of the Celts survived within the inner-most natures of all those born in the Celtic lands.

Anyone familiar with some of the popular writings about the CelticChurch should recognize the major influence these motifs have had on themodern construct of “Celtic spirituality.” Many books on this topic drawfrom a broad range of texts with no sense of chronological or ideologicaldevelopment. In any other area of European spirituality, this approachwould be dismissed as totally inappropriate. For example, a historian couldnot use the novels and speeches of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Franceas evidence for the attitudes of Christians in early medieval Gaul or to arguefor an unbroken line of spirituality within France from Martin of Tours(d. 397) to present day. Yet, this seems to be the methodology that under-lies the assertion that the spirituality in the Celtic lands has remainedunchanged from Pelagius (c.400) to George MacDonald (1824–1905) totoday.

A third major area that has added to the popular notion of theCeltic Church is the increasingly emotional focus of modern, mostlyProtestant churches as they attempt to reform worship and outreach to bemore attractive to popular culture.13 Caught up with this are elements ofthe New Age movement, neo-paganism and post-modernism.14 Within allof these groups, there is a longing to restore something that seems to havebeen “lost” in modern life combined with the hope that in the past people“got it right.” Therefore, for some, the Celtic Church becomes the embod-iment of the dreams of these groups—whether it is the hope that thistradition gave women equality, was able to access special layers of spirituality,or continued and preserved pagan traditions.15 But these ideas reflectmodern hopes, not the reality of the early medieval Church in theCeltic lands or the concerns of those living during that time.16 Essentially,popular Celtic spirituality in the late twentieth and early twenty-firstcenturies tells us much more about the spiritual desires of people today thanthose in the early medieval world.

Introduction 3

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 3

Definitions

Due to the huge separation between popular and specialist conceptions,many scholars have suggested that the term “Celtic Church” should beeliminated altogether.17 The general consensus is that this phrase is so asso-ciated with inaccurate ideas that its usage only furthers misconceptions.Others want to reserve “Celtic” solely to define a language grouping andnothing else.18 They argue against any unifying characteristics that setCeltic culture apart.

As this study focuses on the interaction between the “Celtic” and“Roman” traditions in the period of the Easter controversy, it is importantto 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 BritishChurches, not one or the other exclusively. In other words, there was aseparate Irish tradition of ideas and practices that was not identical to theBritish. This study, however, focuses on what they had in common and wasdistinctive from the rest of the Church in Western Europe.

On the other hand, the term “Roman tradition” refers to those commu-nities who were united in their acceptance of a set of practices also used inRome. In c.600, this included, among others, the churches in MerovingianGaul and portions of Lombard Italy along with the kingdom of Kent inAnglo-Saxon England. Just as with the Celtic tradition, the Roman tradi-tion was in no way a monolith. The Lombard and Merovingian Churcheswere not identical to each other or to that in Kent. It is important toremember that all those adhering to the Celtic and Roman traditionsacknowledged the special role of the papacy, so these terms do not distin-guish between those who honored the bishop of Rome and those who didnot. As will be discussed, the papacy’s relationship with many churchcommunities in the seventh century was quite complex.19

Easter Dating

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


1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 4

the spring equinox.20 On the other hand, attempting to predict the date ofEaster from year to year is a complicated process because it requires theintercalculation of the lunar and solar calendars to determine the date andday of the week on which the full moon will occur, and from that, the dateof Easter Sunday.21 Although Easter dating involves many complex calcula-tions, there are only a few issues that need to be comprehended in order tounderstand how the debate over the correct date of Easter unfolded in theseventh and eighth centuries. Two of the most important aspects were thedate of the equinox and the range of lunar dates on which it was permissi-ble for Easter to occur.

As mentioned, in order to calculate the date of Easter it is necessary toknow when the vernal or spring equinox occurs. Unfortunately, in the late-antique world, different groups argued for alternative dates. In addition, dueto the problems with the Julian calendar, the date of the equinox movedearlier in the calendar year as time went on.22 By the early first century, it actu-ally occurred on March 22/23. By the Council of Nicaea (325), it had movedto March 20 and by the early eighth century to March 17.23 Thus, the actualequinox 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 spec-ulated that God had created the sun and the moon on this date when lightand darkness were in balance.24 In addition, it was maintained thatthe annunciation by the Archangel Gabriel to Mary that she was to be themother of the Messiah occurred on March 25.25 Nine months later, onthe winter solstice or December 25, Christ was born. These dates were notfixed 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 wasconceived. The Incarnation was also seen as the beginning of a new creationwhere Christ, the new Adam, would heal the world. On the longest nightof 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, somemaintained that the ecclesiastical equinox should continue to be observedon March 25 since this was the date recognized by the early Church.

However, by the early third century, Alexandria recalculated the equinoxto March 21, as this date more closely corresponded to astronomical data.During the controversy over Easter dating in the seventh and eighth cen-turies, those following Easter tables with the March 21 equinox could turnto the Council of Nicaea (325) for support since this ecumenical councilhad upheld the customs of Alexandria. Rome itself also had made thechange to recognizing March 21 as the equinox in the fourth century.26

Introduction 5

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 5

Another major issue that caused conflict during the seventh century wasthe lunar limits or the days of the moon on which Easter could be cele-brated. Lunar dates are usually designated by the term luna and the day ofthe cycle, such as luna 12 for the twelfth day of the lunar month or luna 17for 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 thefirst day the moon was visible. This meant that the full moon occurred onluna 14. As mentioned, Easter falls on the Sunday following the first fullmoon (luna 14) after the spring equinox. Since the full moon can fall onany day of the week and Easter must be on a Sunday, there is a seven-dayspan in which Easter may occur. For instance, if the full moon fell on aTuesday, then Easter would fall on luna 19. If the full moon fell on aMonday, Easter would occur on luna 20. The moon cycle helps to illustratethis idea (figure 1.1).

There was disagreement as to whether Easter could actually be cele-brated on luna 14 if this was a Sunday. Some argued that luna 14 was anacceptable date for Easter and thus employed an lunar range of 14–20; in


3 4 51 2

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24

27

25 26

28 29 30

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

luna 14

Saturday

New moon First quarter Full moon Last quarter

Figure 1.1 Phases of the moon

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 6

other words, Easter should be celebrated on a Sunday between the four-teenth and the twentieth days of the moon. Other groups rejected this andso employed alternative sets of lunar ranges. Thus, even if these groups hadagreed on the date of the equinox, they might still disagree regardingwhether the correct date of Easter should fall between luna 14–20 or someother range of dates.

Easter Tables

The early Church in the West appears to have relied on letters sent fromRome or other bishops to announce the date of Easter each year. As theChurch expanded geographically, these letters often did not reach outlyingareas in time. Therefore Easter tables were invented. A table could list Easterdates far into the future so every church would know when to celebrate.Unfortunately, by the mid-sixth century there were a number of tables inuse in Western Europe, all of which differed in how they calculated the dateof Easter, thus often giving conflicting dates.27 The three which most con-cerned 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 wascomposed by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 AD.28 He adapted the basic princi-ples in use at Alexandria. His table was based on a nineteen-year cycle inwhich the solar dates of the full moon before Easter rotated in a nineteen-yearsequence. However, the actual dates of Easter repeated only every 532years.29 Dionysius dated the equinox to March 21 and believed that Eastershould fall on the Sunday between luna 15 and 21.30 In addition, the Easteror Paschal full moon as it was called needed to occur after the equinox aswell. Therefore, the earliest calendar date for Easter was March 22 and thelatest day was April 25 (table 1.1).

Dionysius calculated the Easter dates for ninety-five years (19�5) from532 to 626. In the early seventh century, his table was continued for theyears 627 to 721. At that time, Bede, an Anglo-Saxon monk, usingDionysius’ principles, calculated the full 532-year cycle.

The second popular table was the 532-year table composed by Victoriusin c.457 AD.31 Pope Hilarus (461–68), while still an archdeacon, commis-sioned Victorius to create a more accurate table to be used in Rome. LikeDionysius, Victorius used a March 21 equinox, but he believed that Eastershould fall between the sixteenth and twenty-second day of the moon, luna16–22. Again differing from Dionysius, Victorius argued that the Paschalfull moon could fall before the equinox.32 His limits for Easter were March 22through April 24 (table 1.1). Due to computational problems, in some

Introduction 7

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 7

years Victorius listed both “Latin” and “Greek” dates; the Greek dates werecalculated using luna 15–21 and the Latin dates luna 16–22. This is furthercomplicated by the fact that at times, the luna dates in Victorius’ tablewere incorrect by one day. This means that although he thought his Latindates 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, itmight be necessary to use the Latin, not Greek dates. Those using theGreek dates on Victorius’ table would actually be following an Easter usednowhere in Europe.33 This quickly negated Rome’s reason for commissioningthe table because confusion arose over which date to follow.34 It isknown for example, that in 590 Tours observed Easter on the Latin dateof 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 Celticeighty-four year Paschal cycle (Celtic-84).36 Uncertainty surrounds its ori-gins, but it was possibly composed in Gaul by Sulpicius Severus in the latefourth or early fifth century.37 It has “Celtic” in the title, not because histo-rians assume that a Celt composed it, but because by the time the contro-versy surrounding this table occurred, it was primarily used inCeltic-speaking areas. This table followed an 84-year cycle and the olderMarch 25 equinox.38 Its lunar limits were luna 14–20 and while Easter hadto occur after the equinox, this was not true for the Paschal full moon thatcould fall as early as March 21. This combination of factors produced anEaster range of March 26–April 23 (table 1.1). There are also problems withthis table because approximately every sixty-three years the lunar dates listedin the table advance one day ahead of the actual moon.39 Therefore afterabout 150 years, if the age of the moon on Easter was luna 17, the Celtictable would list this as luna 19—two full days off. This led to additionaldiscrepancies between the three tables.


Table 1.1 Comparison of Easter tables

Table Years Equinox Earliest Luna Lunar Limits Earliest Latest14 Date Easter Date Easter

Date

Dionysian 95 March 21 March 21 Luna 15–21 March 22 April 25

Victorian 532 March 21 March 18 Luna 16–22 March 22 April 24(Latin)Luna 15–21(Greek)

Celtic-84 84 March 25 March 21 Luna 14–20 March 26 April 23

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 8

Practical Issues in the Easter Controversy

The reason finding the correct date of Easter was critical to ecclesiastics inthe early Middle Ages is twofold. The first is practical. The date for Easter isused to determine the start of Holy Week, Ash Wednesday, and thebeginning of the Lent.40 It also is critical in finding the dates for the Feast ofthe Ascension and the Pentecost, which occur six and seven weeks afterEaster, respectively. Therefore, fourteen weeks of the liturgical calendarare calculated from the date of Easter.41 This would be exacerbated by Easterdates that could be up to four weeks apart. If one table listed March 26 asEaster, then Lent would begin on February 8 and Pentecost Sunday wouldbe on May 14. If a competing table identified April 23 as Easter, Lent wouldstart on March 8 and Pentecost would be celebrated on June 11. Thereforefor eighteen weeks, the ecclesiastical calendar would be out of sequence.

This means that the high feast/fast days would contradict as well as thereadings for Mass and the daily prayer cycle. During Lent, people were toabstain from meat and dairy products, eat only one meal a day, and undertakecertain penances. In addition, for married couples, sexual intercourse was oftenfrowned upon. All this can be contrasted to the celebrations after Easter whenthere were few dietary restrictions, the normal meal schedule returned, andmarital relations were allowed. It is easy to imagine tempers flaring overwhether it was acceptable or not to eat meat, especially after waiting sevenweeks for the opportunity. Bede points out that at the Northumbria court, partof 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 membersthought it was Easter and the rest believed it was still four weeks away.

In addition to the internal conflict within Christian communities, as theseventh-century Church was involved in missions and evangelism, the factthat it was unable to determine the date of its most important festival and aperiod of fourteen weeks of fasting and celebrations undermined its claim tobe the custodian of truth and knowledge. It is interesting that this same pointis found in a statement issued by the World Council of Churches in 1997 onthe need for all Christians to celebrate the same Easter. It argues that “bycelebrating this feast of feasts on different days, the churches give a dividedwitness to this fundamental aspect of the apostolic faith, compromising theircredibility 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

Introduction 9

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 9

Christ because they believe that these events ensured forgiveness of sin andsalvation. The exact calendar date of Easter is not contained in the NewTestament, though it is clear that Christ’s death occurred on or directly afterthe Jewish Passover. According to Scripture, Christ rose from the dead threedays later on Sunday.44 Since Christians wish to recreate as closely as possi-ble the environment in which the first Easter happened, it is celebrated onthe Sunday after Passover. Christ is also viewed as the symbolic Passoverlamb, 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 dateof Easter should be calculated using in part the requirements for the date ofPassover as outlined in the Old Testament. In Exodus, it states thatPassover 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 afterthe spring equinox is always the date of Passover. Unlike Easter, Passovercan happen on any day of the week. As mentioned, Christians disagreedwhether 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 Easterto take place before Passover would be to violate the precepts ordainedby God and undermine the idea of Christ’s sacrifice for the salvation ofhumanity.47

The Old Testament also mandates the Feast of Unleavened Bread, whichis celebrated for seven days following Passover. The lunar range, the daysafter the full moon on which Easter can be celebrated, was limited to sevendays in imitation of this Feast. As Christ is the “bread of life,” this alsoappeared 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 afterPassover (luna 15–21).50 However, Deuteronomy implies that this Feastbegins on Passover (luna 14–20).51 Therefore both those who used theCeltic-84 and the Dionysian table could claim that their lunar range agreedwith biblical precepts.

For all those attempting to find the date of Easter, the relationshipbetween the positions of the sun, moon, and earth also needed symbolicallyto reflect correct theology. It was argued that Easter must occur after theequinox 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 oursalvation.52 Easter celebrations occur after luna 14 when, from earth, thefull 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. Justas the moon spins to become more fully illuminated by the sun, Christ sitsat the right hand of the Father and reflects the glory of God.53 Another


1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 10

interpretation is that the first phase of the moon to luna 14 symbolizes “thegrace of the virtues by which our Lord, appearing in the flesh, illumined theworld.”54 As the moon moves past luna 14, this reflects Christ’s resurrectionand ascension.55

The moon’s position in relation to the earth and sun also shows the needto move from external things to internal—from the things of the world tomatters contemplative. Before luna 14, the moon represents Adam who, asa sinner, is focused on earth. After luna 14, the moon becomes more illu-minated by the sun, just as the soul should move toward God. As Augustinestates, “all that light of the soul which was inclining to things that arebeneath is turned to the things that are above, and is thus withdrawn fromthe things of the earth; so that it dies more and more to this world, and itslife is hid with Christ in God.”56

In addition, Easter needed to happen in the first month of the Jewishyear, since that was the month God created the world.57 Christ’s resurrec-tion healed the brokenness caused by the Fall and Christians now have newlife in Christ.58 The resurrection happened on the third day because we nowlive in the third epoch, that of grace.59 This is why Easter occurs in the thirdweek of the first month in the lunar calendar.

For those following the Celtic-84 table, any calculation that used aMarch 21 equinox placed Easter too early and thus symbolically denied thatChrist, 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 becelebrated on luna 14. Due to the fact that Easter celebrations began theevening before the date listed, some believed this table allowed Easter tobegin on luna 13 and thus before the arrival of the full moon.60 As withcelebrating before the equinox, this also symbolically denied the need forChrist’s death and resurrection.

The supporters of the Dionysian table saw a major problem with theVictorian and Celtic-84 when they placed the Easter or Paschal full moonbefore the equinox.61 This also symbolically denied the need for Christ’sgrace. In addition, the first full moon after the equinox signals the start ofthe new year. By placing the Easter moon so early, it was possible that Eastermight be celebrated in the last month of the year, rather than the first. TheVictorian table also allowed Easter to fall on luna 22, the first day of thefourth 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 Eastercould not be celebrated “with the Jews” on Passover. It also was decided that

Introduction 11

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 11

Christians should not rely on the Jewish calculations for Passover since theysometimes allowed this feast to be observed twice in the same year. Whenthis happened, Christians would celebrate Easter in the last month of theyear rather than the first. While separating Easter from the Jewish obser-vances, the council left many questions unanswered since it did not specifi-cally define the date of the equinox or the lunar dates upon which Eastercould occur.62

In the early fourth century, the Alexandrian Church advocated lunar lim-its of 15–21 and a March 21 equinox. They also argued that the Paschal fullmoon had to occur after the equinox in order to ensure that Easter fell in thefirst 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 ofviolating Nicaea since it allowed the full moon to fall before the equinox.Furthermore, the Celtic-84 could be seen as contradicting this councilbecause it allowed Easter to take place on luna 14.64

What is clear from the letter sent by the Emperor Constantine withregard to the decisions made at Nicaea was that all agreed the Church shouldcelebrate Easter on the same date. He called it “scandalous” that some wouldbe celebrating Easter while others were still in the Lenten fast. The Churchneeded to reach a unanimous decision on this issue. Constantine states:

we must consider, too, that a discordant judgment in a case of such impor-tance, and respecting [Easter] is wrong. For our Savior has left us one feast incommemoration of the day of our deliverance . . . and he has willed that hisCatholic Church should be one, the members of which, however scattered inmany and diverse places, are yet cherished by one pervading spirit, that is, bythe will of God.65

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

Summary

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


1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 12

It is important to understand that the Church believed it was critical thatall Christians celebrate Easter on the same day. Part of the reason for thiswas practical. If the date for Easter did not agree, the Christian calendarwould be at variance for up to eighteen weeks. This would affect the readingsat 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 cal-endars, the more significant issues rested on matters of theology. Augustinewrote that the date of Easter had to agree with the Old Testament, NewTestament and the rulings of the church councils.66 The true date of Easterwould align with all these sources, uphold God’s sovereignty over natureand history, and reinforce humanity’s need for salvation and grace.

Tonsures

The primary sources demonstrate that there was some controversy over theCeltic tonsure, or in other words, the style of a cleric’s haircut from approx-imately the late 620s through the early eighth century. In today’s culture itmay seem surprising that there were arguments over how people cut theirhair, but it is clear that this issue was a serious one.67 Throughout the culturesof the medieval West, hairstyles were a sign of social status. Kings and warriorshad different haircuts than peasants or craftsmen.68 Specific haircuts couldalso 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 fromthe other men in his society. The Roman tonsure is the hairstyle we are allfamiliar with thanks to Hollywood. Churchmen shaved the top of theirhead, leaving a bald spot and then shaved their neck creating a symboliccrown 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 inc.712.70 He says that “in the front of the forehead it does seem to bear theresemblance to a crown, but when you come to look at the neck, you find thatthe crown which you expected to see is cut short . . .”71 It has been argued thatthe top of the Celtic tonsure may have been shaped somewhat like a trianglewith 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 purchasethe Holy Spirit.73 Simon also appears in the apocryphal Acts of Peter and thePseudo-Clement Homilies, among others.74 In patristic and early medieval

Introduction 13

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 13

writings, Simon is portrayed as the father of heretics and the spiritualfounder of a heretical pseudo-apostolic succession.75 It is also clear thatPeter is established as the archetype in opposition to Simon. In the TenBooks of History, written in the late sixth century by Gregory of Tours, thereis a story that Simon Magus helped Nero persecute Peter and Paul. Gregorydescribes Simon Magus as “a man of immense malice and a master of everyform of necromancy.”76 It is thus very interesting that the two competingtonsures would be identified by some medieval writers as those of Peter andSimon Magus. To medieval readers, the larger background of confrontationbetween Peter and Simon would come to mind instantly.

This is not to imply that the tonsure was a heretical concern per se. Inthe letter just mentioned, Ceolfrid remarks that wearing an alternative ton-sure is not an act that would jeopardize a person’s salvation. However, afterrecommending Peter’s tonsure as the best, he then adds “. . . nor do I con-sider any tonsure to be rightly judged more abominable and detestable thanthat worn by [Simon Magus].”77 In other words, while there could be somedivergence on tonsures—the East for example used one associated withPaul—the Celtic tonsure was not just at variation with Rome and much ofWestern Europe, but associated with the arch-heretic. Ceolfrid says that allwho follow Christ should wear Peter’s tonsure and abandon that of hisenemy. Those who wear the Celtic tonsure are thus tainted by association,even if theologically orthodox. The use of Simon Magus’ tonsure, from theRoman point of view, raised questions concerning a person’s true allegianceto Christ and apostolic tradition. Usually when people abandoned the alter-native Celtic dating for Easter, they also adopted the Roman tonsure. Thismeant that, as the Easter controversy continued through the seventh cen-tury and into the eighth, the tonsure became a very visible sign of allegianceto either the Celtic or Roman party.78

Penance and Penitentials

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


1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 14

As a penitent, a person was not allowed to participate in the Mass andwas required to give up all civil and familial responsibilities. In many ways,the status of a penitent was similar to the separation undertaken by monasticsin renouncing the world, except that monks were not denied access to theEucharist. After a set period of time, the penitent was readmitted into thecommunity of the faithful by the laying on of hands by the bishop.However, even after being reconciled to the community, the penitent mightnot be able to hold public responsibilities.81 The severity of public penanceand the fact that it was available only once, meant that there was the temp-tation to delay this ceremony as long as possible. The same also became truefor baptism, with some delaying this ritual until they were on theirdeathbeds and the possibility of committing major post–baptismal sinsbecame highly unlikely.82

Another model of penance developed in fourth- and fifth-centurymonastic circles. John Cassian (360–435), a monk from the East whosettled in southern Gaul in the early fifth century, argued that sin was like adisease. Just as certain medicines cure specific disorders, an assignedpenance should be designed to counteract an identified sin; for theft, thesinner should give alms, for gluttony, fasting would be an appropriateresponse. Assigning specific penances to counter sin would help to “cure”the sinner and lead to long-term behavioral changes. He perceived sin ashindering spiritual growth just as illness undermines physical well-being.83

This idea of using penance to “heal” the sinner was combined with themonastic practice of daily confession of major and minor sins to a superioror the monastic community. From this merger came the idea of private orpublic confession with repeatable penances that could be performed asoften as was needed for the Christian to reach true spiritual health.84

In the sixth century, an additional development occurred when theearliest surviving penitentials were composed by two ascetics, Gildas inBritain and Finnian in Ireland.85 Penitentials contain lists of sins and theappropriate penance for each. For instance, this is a passage from one writtenby the Irish abbot Columbanus (d. 615):

If any cleric has committed theft . . . if he has done it once or twice, let himfirst make restitution to his neighbour, and do penance for a whole year onbread and water. If he has made a practice of this, and cannot make restitu-tion, let him do penance three years on bread and water. . . . If any laymanhas committed theft . . . if he has done it once or twice, let him first restoreto his neighbour the loss which he has caused, and let him do penance for ahundred and twenty days on bread and water. But if he has made a practiceof stealing often, and cannot make restitution, let him do penance for a yearand a hundred and twenty days, and further undertake not to repeat it.86

Introduction 15

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 15

Notice that the penalties for clerics and laymen differ as well as those forsingle versus repeat offenders. Penalties would also vary depending on ageand gender.87 When a Christian confessed his/her sins, the priest/abbotwould reference a penitential to determine the appropriate penance.88 Theuse of penitentials in private confession is referred to as “tariff penance.”

A major question for historians is why penitentials appeared in theCeltic tradition.89 There were some precedents in the East. For instance,Basil (c.330–79) of Caesarea had written letters advising specific penancesfor different sins.90 However, the Celtic penitentials are much more elabo-rate and help to codify the advice of earlier writers. One influence on theIrish may have been Irish secular law, in which the penalty for crimes wasdetermined by four things: the status of the person who committed thecrime, the rank of the victim, the nature of the act, and whether it was arepeat offence.91 On the basis of these criteria, the perpetrator would needto pay an assessed fine to the victim or his/her kin. Our modern notion thatall are equal in the eyes of the law would be considered quite odd to theearly medieval world. Thus a noble who stole from a bishop would pay aheavier fine than one who committed this same crime against someone oflower 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 committedtheft had a longer penance than the layman. The example of Irish secularlaw may well have played a major factor in the creation of penitentials in theBritish and Irish Churches, but as historians continue to reassess the com-plexity of penance in late-Roman and early-medieval Europe, additionalfactors may come to light.92

It used to be argued that the Irish introduced private penance to theContinent after which public penance quickly disappeared. This is no longersupported by scholars who point out that before the arrival of Irish practicesthe Continental Church had a variety of public and private penanceceremonies.93 In addition, more public aspects of penance continued to beused even in Ireland and other areas that had adopted penitentials.94 In otherchurches, it appears that while private forms of penance were utilized, peni-tentials were not.95 It is important then not to picture the early medievalChurch clearly divided between those supporting “tariff penance” and thoseadvocating continued use of public penance. Most churches used a variety ofpenitential practices depending upon the situation.96

As far as can be determined from the primary sources, the creation ofhighly structured penitentials with penances listed by the frequency of thesin, gender, age, and rank was a distinctly “Celtic” practice that spread tothe rest of the Church. As Irish monks settled on the Continent and inAnglo-Saxon England, they brought their penitential practices with them.


1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 16

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

Peregrinatio pro Christoor Exile for Christ

The term peregrinus is found in Roman law where it means an exile orresident alien, someone without family or kinship ties.97 In patristic writ-ings, this word can refer to someone from abroad or a person undertaking ajourney.98 Augustine, for instance, argued that Christians should be exilesor peregrini in this world, strangers in a strange land who long for the timewhen they can enter the heavenly kingdom.99 The general theme of a life ofexile or peregrinatio as popularized by Augustine was incorporated through-out the Church in many different ways. In addition, a peregrinatio couldsimply refer to a pilgrimage undertaken to a specific holy site or shrine. Inthis sense, the peregrinus or pilgrim was on a temporary journey with aspecific 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 orpermanent exile.100 This may be a reflection of secular law where exile wasa punishment for severe crimes.101 More uniquely in the Celtic lands itmeant those who voluntarily chose to permanently exile themselves fromfamily and kin in order to be fully dependent upon God, peregrinatio proChristo.102 This type of ascetic exile or permanent pilgrimage may have beeninspired in part by Biblical injunctions.103

For the Irish, there were two major types of peregrinatio: the “lesserexile,” which meant simply leaving one’s local area, but not Ireland itself,and the “superior exile,” which involved traveling overseas.104 Columbanusis an excellent example of an Irishman who undertook both types ofperegrinatio. As a young man, he left Leinster and eventually joined themonastery at Bangor in northern Ireland (see map 5.1). Later in life, he leftIreland and traveled to Merovingian Gaul and then Lombard Italy.

While the “exile for God” was normally undertaken for personal spiritualdevotion, many peregrini did become involved with missions and pastoralcare.105 St. Patrick described his life in Ireland as a peregrinatio.106 St. Samsonleft Wales, first for Cornwall and then Brittany, finally becoming bishop ofDol in northern France.107 Columba traveled to what is today southwesternScotland to establish the monastery of Iona.108 As will be discussed,both Columbanus and Fursey had significant influence on the Christiancommunities in a number of geographic areas during their travels.109

Introduction 17

1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 17

Conclusion

In recent decades, many historians’ contributions have radically transformedwhat we know about the churches in the Celtic-speaking areas from the latesixth to the mid-eighth centuries. Scholars, who point to the many similaritiesbetween the churches in the Celtic-speaking lands and their continentalcounterparts, have abandoned older theories that the Celts created a “pure”Church in opposition to the more authoritarian Rome. In addition, historiansreject the arguments found in many of the popular books on CelticChristianity that the Celts are by nature inherently spiritual, mystical, irra-tional, and unchanging.

For all this, there were at least four practices used in the Celtic tradition inthe late sixth century that diverged from those followed at Rome. These werethe table used for determining the date of Easter, the form of tonsure, the useof penitentials, and the popularity of the “exile for Christ.” By far, Eastercaused the most controversy in part because this date was critical in determin-ing fourteen weeks of feasts and fasts in the liturgical calendar. However, therewere theological considerations as well. The correct date for Easter would ful-fill God’s precepts for Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread as outlinedin the Old Testament. It would also align with what was known about Christ’sdeath and resurrection from the New Testament and Church fathers.110 Inaddition, on Easter, the positions of the sun and the moon should symbolicallydemonstrate the need for Christ’s saving grace. The supporters of the Celtic-84,Victorian, and Dionysian tables each believed their table was correct and thatthe others were guilty of violating key principles.

As the Easter controversy continued through the seventh century, disagree-ments over the correct form of tonsure arose as well. Due to the fact that thoseusing the Celtic-84 tended to wear the Celtic tonsure, this haircut becamesymbolically linked with opposition to the Roman Easter dating from the 620suntil the last of the British Churches adopted the Dionysian table in c.770. Itwas not the tonsure per se that was wrong, but what it represented.

As many in the British and Irish Churches undertook peregrinatio forChrist, they came into contact with those who followed the Roman Eastertables and tonsure, triggering the Easter controversy in this period.However, in the midst of this, the Celts helped to create and popularizepenitentials. From the fifth century, the Church was in a dynamic period ofexperimentation and creativity with regard to the most effective ways todeal with sin and repentance. As different churches developed a variety ofpublic and private penances, the Celtic contribution of penitentials addedan element in the Church’s emerging practices of confession and penance.


1403972990ts02.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 18

Chapter 2

Columbanus and the Merovingian Church

Although controversies surrounding the date of Easter had occurred fromthe late second century, the struggle between those who used the Celtic-84and those supporting the Victorian table first enters the historical sources inlate–sixth-century Merovingian Gaul. During this period an Irish monknamed Columbanus and his followers left Ireland and settled for a time inthe Merovingian kingdom of Burgundy. As they believed that the Celtic-84was the correct table, and as the Church in Gaul had decided to follow theVictorian table, conflict soon broke out.

The sources written by and about Columbanus in the seventh centuryare essential to any study of the interactions between the Celtic and Romantraditions. These documents demonstrate that the Easter controversy was acritical issue to both the Frankish Church and to Columbanus and hissupporters. Columbanus’ actions during this dispute also prove that herespected the pope and the right of the papacy to judge controversialmatters. However, like most churchmen of his day, he felt he had the right tocriticize 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 con-troversy since Columbanus established close ties with the Burgundian courtthat in turn significantly influenced his interactions with the Merovingianepiscopacy. By examining these episodes in detail, it is possible to lay afoundation with which to compare and contrast not only the Roman andCeltic traditions but also the attitudes of the various Celtic churchmenactive throughout the period of the Easter controversy.

1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 19

The Sources

There are a number of surviving primary documents from the late sixth andearly seventh centuries that concern Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italyincluding saints’ Lives, council records, papal letters, the poetry ofVenantius Fortunatus (530–609), penitentials, monastic rules, and so on.However, the historical context of the relationship between Columbanusand the ecclesiastical and secular leadership on the Continent is foundpredominately in four major sources: Jonas’ Life of Columbanus,Columbanus’ letters, Gregory of Tours’ Ten Books of History, and theChronicle of Fredegar. This is not to imply that the other primary documentsof 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 ofBobbio wrote the Life of Columbanus and his Disciples.1 Jonas was a monkat Bobbio, one of Columbanus’ monastic foundations, and was asked inc.636 by the abbots of Bobbio and Luxeuil to write a Life of their found-ing saint. In one sense, it is a boon for historians to have a Life composedso soon after Columbanus’ death, while it was still possible for the authorto interview those who actually knew him. However, with any Life, factsthat might undermine the sanctity of the person in question are onlyincluded when the author needs to ensure that his specific interpretation isthe one remembered. Thus, Jonas’ job was to provide the “official” versionof the controversial events in Columbanus’ life, glossing over conflictswhen possible, and if he could not do this, to make sure it was the stanceof the Columbanian communities that people remembered. As will bediscussed below, there are times when Jonas omitted details or put a certain“spin” on events to ensure that he always portrayed Columbanus in apositive light.

Jonas’ second main objective was to reinforce the belief of theColumbanian communities that Columbanus was a saint. The Life bothreflects the attitudes present among Columbanus’ supporters and perpetuatesthose ideas. Therefore it is apologetical in nature. In this way, hagiographyis different from biography. A good biography portrays the person as realis-tically as possible, warts and all. In the end, the person appears much morehuman than the media or other sources may have depicted him. Thepurpose 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.


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 20

Columbanus’ Letters

Thankfully, some of Columbanus’ own writings have survived and, while onlypresenting his point of view, they can be used in combination with the Life togain a better understanding of the events in question.3 Five of Columbanus’letters provide information on his interactions with the larger Church. Hewrote to the papacy in 600, 604/07, and 613 respectively. In c.603, he sent aletter to the Merovingian bishops at the Council of Chalon, and after his exilefrom 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 grammarand the techniques of classical rhetoric.5 His choice of word order oftenenhances his overall point and he was able to use allusions to Scripture andthe Church fathers to create intricate, multifaceted arguments.6 Due to this,historians have to carefully scrutinize his letters in order to discover all theimplications of each passage.

There are a few additional writings by Columbanus that survive, thoughthey do not provide the same type of historical evidence as his letters. Theseinclude his two monastic rules, his penitential, some sermons, and perhaps ahandful of poems, though their authorship is disputed.7 Admittedly this isnot 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, morepopularly 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 historianreconstruct the political situation in the Merovingian kingdoms. TheHistory provides additional background on some of those mentioned inJonas’ Life of Columbanus. Gregory had his own underlying agendas andbiases that influenced the material he included in the History, and thank-fully these do not always align with those of the Columbanian communi-ties. This enables the historian to form a more three-dimensional portrayalof some of the important historical figures from this period.

Chronicle of Fredegar

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

Columbanus and the Merovingian Church 21

1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 21

for the Chronicle, though most favor a mid–seventh-century date.10 Some ofthe material in this text came from the Life of Columbanus by Jonas, but itis apparent the author also used independent sources. As with Gregory’sHistory, the Chronicle of Fredegar gives the historian additional information onpeople 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 histwenties, he undertook the “lesser” peregrinatio or exile and eventuallyentered the monastery at Bangor. He remained there until c.590, when hechose to undertake the superior “exile for God” and journeyed with twelvecompanions to the Continent.13 Columbanus traveled via Brittany to Gaul,where he eventually came to the court of King Guntram (561–92) or KingChildebert II (592–96) of Austrasia and Burgundy (table 2.1).14 It was mostlikely Childebert who requested that Columbanus remain in his kingdomand granted land to establish a monastery at Annegray (map 2.1). As hegained an increasing number of followers, Columbanus founded two moremonasteries, one at Luxeuil and another at Fontaines.15 He apparentlyremained abbot of all three monasteries during this period and also com-posed 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 Hecriticized Theuderic for keeping concubines and accordingly refused tobless his illegitimate children. According to the Life, Brunhild and Theudericpersecuted Columbanus’ monasteries in retribution. When the disputeescalated, the king sent troops to escort Columbanus to a ship that wouldtake him back to Ireland. However, Columbanus was able to escape andlater returned to Luxeuil.17

When Brunhild and Theuderic heard of Columbanus’ return, they senthim into exile once again. Instead of going to Ireland, however, he trav-eled to the court of Chlothar II (584–629), king of Neustria (table 2.1).There Columbanus obtained escorts and provisions from Chlothar to travelto the Kingdom of Austrasia. Upon his arrival, he was warmly received byKing Theudebert (596–612) and given permission to establish a monasteryat Bregenz, though he did not remain there for long.18 In 613, Columbanustraveled 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 theLombards who followed Arian beliefs. While there, he composed a work


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 22

23

P Y R E N E E S M T S .

Orléans

Bourges

CologneNivelles

Stablo-Malmedy

TrierReims

Chelles

RebaisJouarre

St. WandrilleJumièges

Lagny

Metz

Remiremont

AnnegrayFontaines

Luxeuil

Verdun

Toul

St. Gallen Bregenz

LaonSoissons

Noyon

CambraiCorbie

Augsburg

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

Bobbio

Cahors

Solignac

Poitiers

Tours

Troyes

Paris

St. Germain

Fleury LangresAuxerre

Faremoutiers

Clermont

Chalon

Rouen

Mâcon

Vienne

Lyons Geneva

Arles

Milan

Tortona

Ravenna

Rome

Nantes

A Q U I T A I N E

B R I T T A N Y

N E U S T R I A

L O M B A R D Y

B U R G U N D Y

A U S T R A S I A

P R O V E N C E

Péronne

BesançonBasel

Tournai

St. Amand

St. Bertin

Amiens

Map 2.1 Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy

against this heresy. He founded one last monastic community at Bobbio innorthern Italy. In 614, he wrote a letter to Chlothar requesting royal pro-tection for Luxeuil, which was duly granted. Columbanus died a year laterin November 615.19

Columbanus on Easter Dating

One of the major issues throughout Columbanus’ letters is the unity of theChurch. Columbanus was also insistent that the Church, particularly thepapacy, was failing to teach correct doctrine and needed to better promotea Christ-like character in the Body of Christ. The dispute over Easter fitswithin these concerns.

At least as far as the surviving evidence demonstrates there was little con-troversy over the divergent Easter dates for the first period that Columbanuswas in Gaul. This can be explained by two factors. First, it can be assumedthat Columbanus was less well known during the early years of his career on


Chlothar I(511–61)

Guntram(561–92)

Charibert(561–67)

Childebert II(575–95)

Theuderic(596–613)

Theudebert(596–612)

Sigibert II(613)

(592–96)

(612–13)

Sigibert m. Brunhild(561–75)

Chiperic I(561–84)

(613–29)

Chlothar II(584–629)

Dagobert(623–32)

Charibert II(629–32)

(629–39)

SOISSONS

SOISSONS

NEUSTRIA

BURGUNDY

BURGUNDY

BURGUNDY

AQUITAINE

NEUSTRIA

PARISAUSTRASIA

AUSTRASIA

AUSTRASIA

AUSTRASIA

AUSTRASIA

AUSTRASIA

AUSTRASIA

BURGUNDY

BURGUNDY

BURGUNDY

Table 2.1 Simplified Merovingian family tree

1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 24

the Continent. While he appears to have gained some support from theBurgundian court soon after his arrival, the Merovingian episcopacy likelytook little notice of him until he became popular and amassed a number offollowers.

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 Churchadopted Victorius’ table. Therefore, all of Merovingian Gaul was using thistable and needing to decide which of the Easter dates was correct. Gregoryof Tours reports that in 590, Tours followed the April 2 Latin date, while


Table 2.2 Comparative Easter dates, 590–608

Year Celtic-84 Victorian

Easter luna luna Easter luna luna(Victorian)* (Celtic)*

590 March 26 17 15 March 26 15/22 17/24or April 2

591 April 15 18 16 April 15 16 18592 March 30 14 11 April 6 18 21593 April 19 16 13 March 29 21 24594 April 11 18 15 April 11 or 18 15/22 18/25595 March 27 14 12 April 3 19 21596 April 15 14 12 April 22 19 21597 April 7 17 15 April 7 or 14 15/22 17/24598 March 30 20 18 March 30 18 20599 April 12 14 12 April 19 19 21600 April 3 16 14 April 10 21 23601 March 26 19 17 March 26 17 19602 April 15 20 18 April 15 18 20603 March 31 16 14 April 7 21 23604 April 19 17 15 March 22 16 18605 April 11 19 17 April 11 17 19606 March 27 16 13 April 3 20 23607 April 16 17 14 April 23 21 24608 April 7 19 16 April 7 16 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 oneday ahead of the actual moon every sixty-three years. The Victorian luna dates also disagreed with theDionysian from the seventh through the nineteenth year of the nineteen-year cycle. Due to these discrepan-cies, many tables in this book will list the luna date of the Easter table in question and then the date accord-ing to the competing table.

Source: Celtic-84 Easter and luna dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19, modernized andcycled by C. Corning; Victorian Easter and luna dates calculated using Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, TheOxford 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.

1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 25

other areas in Gaul celebrated the March 26 Greek date.20 Given thecontroversy surrounding the Victorian table in the early 590s, coupled withColumbanus’ limited popularity, it is understandable that the Easter con-troversy between Columbanus and the Merovingian Church did notbecome a major issue until the latter part of the 590s.

First Letter of Columbanus

The first evidence of a developing dispute between Columbanus and theMerovingian episcopacy is contained in a letter that Columbanus wrote toPope Gregory the Great, c.600, asking for his support in the Easter contro-versy. In this letter, Columbanus outlines the problems with the Victoriantable. He argues that luna 21–22 should not be used because these dates areso 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 minutesbefore the sun sets. However, by luna 22, the moon does not appear until ninehours and seventeen minutes after sunset. For Columbanus, Easter couldnever be observed on a day in which darkness ruled light. Therefore by allow-ing Easter to occur on luna 21–22, the Victorian table recognized a darkEaster; one on which there were more hours of darkness than moonlight.21

In addition, because the Victorian table used the March 21 equinox, itallowed Easter to fall as early as March 22. For Columbanus, who believedthat the equinox fell on March 25, this was too early.22 Therefore, theVictorian 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 Luna Sunset Moon Time between SunsetRise and Moonrise

March 25 14 19:11 18:54 � 0h 17mMarch 26 15 19:13 20:07 0h 54mMarch 27 16 19:14 21:24 2h 10mMarch 28 17 19:16 22:43 3h 27mMarch 29 18 19:17 no rise n/aMarch 30 19 19:19 00:05 5h 46mMarch 31 20 19:20 01:27 7h 07mApril 1 21 19:22 02:40 8h 18mApril 2 22 19:23 03:40 9h 17mApril 3 23 19:25 04:25 10h 00m

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

1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 26

but also because it placed Easter before the equinox, when there were morehours of darkness than light. Since Easter at its heart is a celebration ofhumanity’s deliverance from sin, a dark Easter symbolically denied the needfor 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. Hestates that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread should only be cele-brated between luna 14 and 20 as stated in Deuteronomy. Victorius, byusing luna 21–22, added two days that are outside the law of God.23 Inaddition, 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 ofUnleavened Bread so that Easter would always fall at least two days afterPassover. While Victorius succeeds in ensuring that the dates for Easter andPassover never overlap by calculating from luna 16, Columbanus points outthat by doing this Victorius has changed the word of God. He quotesDeuteronomy 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 scholarsexamined Victorius’ table, it “earned ridicule or indulgence rather thanauthority.”25

Columbanus then moves the discussion to the problem of keepingEaster on Passover with the Jews, the main criticism of the Celtic-84 sinceit allowed Easter to fall on luna 14.26 He argues that the Jews do not cele-brate Easter and it does not belong to them. Thus, there is nothing wrongwith having Easter occur on luna 14 if it is a Sunday because God, not theJews, instituted Passover. This holiday observes God’s miracle of saving theexiles in Egypt and thus Passover is not a day to elevate or honor Jews, butone that recognizes the Lord’s grace and mercy in saving his people. Eastercelebrates this same idea; Christ died to save sinners from damnation. Tosay that luna 14 is a “Jewish day” gives Jews the authority that they haveforfeited by rejecting Christ and ignores God’s power over all creation.

He next reminds the pope that during the Easter dispute of the latesecond century, the bishops in the East did not agree with Pope Victor’s(189–98) condemnation of celebrating Easter with the Jews. Columbanusis taking this somewhat out of context, however. In the second century, theissue was whether Easter should always be celebrated on luna 14, regardlessof the day of the week.27 Columbanus was not advocating a return to thispractice since he thought Easter could only be observed on Sunday.Therefore, he is stretching his argument a bit by implying that not only didthe East allow Passover and Easter to occur on the same day, but it upheldEaster 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


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 27

much is known about Anatolius except the information provided byEusebius in the Ecclesiastical History. He relates that the bishop was verylearned in maths, astronomy, and physics and that the people of Alexandriaasked Anatolius to establish a school of Aristotelian philosophy.29 Eusebiuseven 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 ofPaschal 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 thisperiod of the moon not only cannot affirm it by authority of divine scripturebut incur the charge of both sacrilege and contumacy, and the peril of theirsouls, 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 inerror and aligning themselves with heretics.32 In case the reader is unsurewhether 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 theEast, Anatolius and by extension, Jerome have all condemned the Victoriantable and/or its lunar limits. He pleads with the pope not to see this as anargument between a lowly monk and Victorius, but between the authoritiesof the Church and Victorius. Who ultimately should be trusted—Scriptureand the Church fathers or a cleric who could not figure out how to correctlycalculate an Easter table? Columbanus cautions the pope that “he who goesagainst the authority of St. Jerome will be a heretic or reprobate, whoever hemay be, in the eyes of the churches of the West; for these repose anundoubted faith in divine scripture in all things.”33

Other Letters by Columbanus about Easter

Three additional letters by Columbanus survive that discuss Easter. Thefirst of these was written in c.603, when Columbanus was asked by theBurgundian bishops to appear before a church council.34 He chose not toattend and instead sent a written reply. Jonas makes absolutely no mentionof the council in his Life of Columbanus, but most scholars agree that thisletter was in response to a council held at Chalon in c.603.


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 28

A comparison of the Easter tables helps to show why controversy mighthave arisen at this time. For supporters of the Celtic-84, the April 7 datelisted on the Victorian table in 603 fell on luna 23, a totally unacceptabledate (table 2.2). According to the Victorian table, March 31, as advocatedby the Celtic-84, would fall on luna 14. Matters were even worse in 604when the Victorian date was March 22, before the March 25 equinox forthe Celtic table. The Easter dates in that year were also a full four weeksapart since the Celtic-84 listed April 19 as the correct date. In addition, it isinteresting to note that in 606, the Celtic-84 would begin another 84-yearcycle and its lunar dates would shift one more day out of alignment with theactual moon.35 Keeping all this in mind, it is not too surprising that thecontroversy came to a head in c.603.

After Chalon, Columbanus again wrote to the papacy.36 Due to the factthat 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 ofthis letter, Columbanus was facing more pressure from the Burgundianbishops to abandon the Celtic-84. As far as is known, he received noresponse from Pope Gregory, and it can be assumed the Celtic-84 wascondemned at the Council of Chalon.

Columbanus’ last letter in which Easter is mentioned was written afterhe had been exiled from Burgundy in 610.37 He addresses his monasticcommunity at Luxeuil and specifically Athala, who he assumes will take hisplace as abbot. This letter contains advice on maintaining peace and unitywithin the community, specifically in terms of observing the correct dateof Easter.

These three letters contain many of the points found within the letter toPope Gregory. Columbanus again argues that the Victorian table violatesboth the Old and New Testaments and that it celebrates a dark Easterthereby rejecting the need for humanity to be saved.38 In addition, herepeats the fact that scholars have condemned Victorius’ table and its Easterlimits. Further undermining the authority of this table is the fact that it wascomposed “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 Anatoliusare correct in their support of luna 14–20 lunar limits.

What is new in these letters is Columbanus’ argument for a compromisesolution. In the letter to the Council of Chalon, he suggests that both sidesprayerfully examine the two Easter tables. If each tradition is found to beworthy, then both should be followed. However, just after pointing out thatthe Victorian table violates Scripture, he declares that only those tables thatagree with the Old and New Testaments should be accepted. Obviously, hebelieved that his tradition would triumph.40


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 29

By the time that he wrote his second letter to the papacy, however, itappears that Columbanus was less hopeful that the Frankish Church wouldunify behind the correct Easter table. He requested that the pope allow himand his followers to use the Celtic-84, even if the rest of the Frankish bishopschose to remain in error by sanctioning the Victorian table. To support thispetition, he reminds the pope of the situation between Polycarp and PopeAnicetus (c.155–c.166) who agreed to disagree over Easter.41 He also citesthe First Council of Constantinople (381) to argue that “churches of Godplanted in pagan nations should live by their own laws, as they had beeninstructed by their fathers.”42 He stated earlier that one of the reasons theVictorian table had less authority than the Celtic-84 was that it was createdafter the period of the Church fathers.43 Therefore, by referencing this coun-cil, Columbanus reinforces his right to use the Celtic-84, even if theMerovingian Church would not.

Summary

For Columbanus, unity on Easter was bound up with the unity of theChurch as a whole. This is a theme found within the writings on Eastersince before the Council of Nicaea, and one that continued throughout theseventh and eighth centuries. Obviously, the Burgundian bishops consid-ered Easter calculation an important issue as well, since Columbanus’ lettersare witness to as many as fifteen years of conflict and the calling of a majorkingdom-wide council.

Columbanus saw the Victorian table as violating the symbolism evident innature, the Old and New Testaments, and the teachings of the Church fathers.He could not understand why the Frankish bishops continued to support thistable and why the papacy did not issue a clear condemnation of it. He tookgreat pains to present his arguments as not coming from himself alone but asrepresenting a large and illustrious group of people, including St. Jerome. Hedid propose in his third letter that both tables could be followed inMerovingian Gaul, but taken in context with the rest of the letter and his otherwritings, it is clear that he believed this solution would be allowing theFrankish 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 beused as evidence for his attitude toward the papacy and the authority it


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 30

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 WesternChurch due to the association of Sts. Peter and Paul with the bishop ofRome.44 Christian tradition held that Peter had been the first bishop atRome and that Christ had granted him special authority over the Christiancommunity. This is important because in ancient Roman inheritance law,rights and authority were passed intact to the appointed heir. Therefore, asbishop of Rome, the pope was Peter’s heir and deserved the same honor andrespect that had been given to the Apostle.45 In addition, both Sts. Peter andPaul had established churches in Rome and been martyred there, thus giv-ing it a strong connection to both men.

In practical reality, Rome was seen as a center of orthodoxy and a courtof appeals when disputes could not be solved by regional councils.46

However, local churches were still very independent; the assumption beingthat the pope would not interfere unless asked to do so. Most would haveconsidered an ecumenical council the highest authority in the Church, notthe 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 under-mined by the Three Chapters controversy.48 Problems arose in the Churchin 553 when the Second Council of Constantinople, also known as theFifth Ecumenical, ruled that the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibasof Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus should be condemned for supportingNestorian ideas.49 This was controversial because the Fourth EcumenicalCouncil at Chalcedon had cleared these men of heresy charges and had notdenounced their writings. Therefore, it appeared that the Fifth EcumenicalCouncil was declaring that the Fourth had been in error. Since ecumenicalcouncils were the highest authority in the Church, they could not be wrong.If the Fourth had ruled incorrectly, then ecumenical councils might havemade other mistakes in doctrine and practice as well. This would open thedoor to questioning virtually every doctrine held by the Church.

In response to papal condemnation of the three writings (chapters) ofTheodore, Ibas, and Theodoret, a number of churches in the West broke offcommunion with Rome.50 These included the churches in North Africa,southern Gaul, and northern Italy.51 By 600, some churches had resolvedthe conflict with Rome, but the orthodox churches of northern Italyremained in schism. Furthermore, the fact that parts of the Lombard king-dom were following Arian teachings and the See of Ravenna remained attimes independent of Roman power only complicated the situation for thepapacy in northern Italy.52

At times, some churches in Gaul, while remaining in communion withRome, chose to ignore papal dictates and advice.53 Gregory the Great wrote


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 31

to the Frankish Church concerned about problems with simony and askedthat 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 discussespapal involvement in Gaul and seems to downplay the idea that Rome heldany special power or authority.55

Columbanus and Rome

Columbanus’ letters emphasize that the Irish acknowledged their debt andobligation to Rome for the Christianization of Ireland. He states in hisletter to Pope Boniface that the Irish

are disciples of Saints Peter and Paul and of all the disciples who wrote thesacred canon by the Holy Ghost, and we accept nothing outside the evangel-ical and apostolic teachings; none has been a Judaizer, none a schismatic; butthe Catholic Faith, as it was delivered by you first, who are the successors ofthe holy apostles, is maintained unbroken.56

It has been argued that the statement “as it was delivered by you first” is anallusion to Pope Celestine sending Palladius to be a bishop in Ireland. Thisphrase may also connect to Pope Leo’s assertion that Christian Rome hadsurpassed pagan Rome, since through the message of Christ, Romehad authority in territories never controlled by the Empire.57 Just as Romehad once been the center of an earthly kingdom so now it was the head of aspiritual 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 thefact that it had been the capital of the Empire. Instead, the city is importantto him because “we are bound to St. Peter’s chair; for though Rome be greatand famous, among us it is only on that chair that her greatness and herfame depend.”59

Columbanus also acknowledges Rome’s place as a protector of ortho-doxy. In his letter to Gregory, Columbanus writes that he wants to see thepope “so that I may drink from the spiritual channel of the living fountainand the living flood of knowledge flowing from heaven.”60 He continuesthis 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 usedby Rome to support the idea of papal primacy.62 First, Rome was associatedwith St. Peter and this gave it special authority as his heir. Second, Romenow influenced lands that (originally) had not been part of the Roman


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 32

Empire in the West. Third, that pure doctrine and practice flowed fromRome and as long as the streams of tradition poured forth from this commonsource, the Church should not fall into error.63

Columbanus’ view of the papacy is best seen in his letter to PopeBoniface in c.613 regarding the Three Chapters controversy.64 Keeping inmind the schism occurring within the Church at that time, his letter is aremarkable acknowledgment of the possibilities for papal leadership in theChurch. 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 commanderof the troops in the battle between good and evil.65 He pleads with the popeto remove all suspicion that Rome supports heretics, to call a council, andto lead the Church back to unity.66

However, Columbanus cautions, if the pope is in error and refuses torepent, his “subordinates,” those who have kept the orthodox faith, have theright to judge him.67 As heir to Peter, the pope holds authority only as longas he is true to apostolic teaching.68 As head of the body of Christ, it is thepope’s responsibility as watchman and shepherd to warn and admonish theChurch. As the source from which the streams of true doctrine flowthrough all the traditions in the West, he must repent and promote correctteaching 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 forwhy the papacy must better respond to the Three Chapters controversy.

Columbanus was not always as diplomatic as he might have been in hisletters, especially those to the papacy.70 The amount of controversy thatfollowed him throughout his career on the Continent indicates that heoften had problems with this. However, he did recognize the role of thepope as leader of the Church and took the papacy to task for not effectivelyexercising this authority. It is not hard to imagine Columbanus’ disappoint-ment when he believed the papacy would not choose the correct Eastertable or make the necessary decisions to end the schism caused by the ThreeChapters controversy.71 Columbanus’ hope was that the papacy wouldprovide leadership for the Church and once again unite the body of Christ.

Kings and Bishops

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


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 33

communities in the 640s by ensuring that those in power were notoffended by his work. Due to this, Jonas is either silent or manipulates dataconcerning Columbanus’ interactions with the Merovingian kings andbishops.

Merovingian Kings

Understanding Columbanus’ relationships with the Merovingian kings iscritical because this influenced his ability to respond to the Merovingianbishops.72 According to Jonas, after Columbanus settled in Burgundy heestablished a number of monasteries and gained many followers, includingKing Theuderic.73 Columbanus then convinced Theuderic to abandon thepractice of concubinage and take a lawful wife. This was a major threat toTheuderic’s grandmother, Brunhild, who thought that a queen wouldundermine her own power. She also was upset because Theuderic listened toColumbanus’ advice rather than her own. Soon after this, Brunhild askedColumbanus to bless her great-grandchildren, whose mother was a concu-bine.74 He refused and prophesized that her grandchildren would not liveto inherit the throne. In retaliation, Brunhild began to “persecute”Columbanus’ monasteries and also issued orders forbidding any to aid hismonks.

Next Jonas recounts that Columbanus traveled to where the king wasstaying to demand that the court stop harassing his communities. Theudericsent Columbanus food, but the abbot refused to accept gifts “from thewicked.”75 As he said this, all of the serving plates and cups broke apart.Suitably chastened by this miracle, Theuderic and Brunhild begged forforgiveness and promised never again to attack Columbanus’ monasteries.However, they soon forsook their promises. Not only did Brunhild turn theking against Columbanus, but the court and the bishops were soon stand-ing in opposition as well.76

Jonas never mentions the controversy over Easter or any other issues of dis-cord between Columbanus and the bishops, so the reader is unaware of theepiscopal hostility that existed before 609/10. Thus, in Jonas’ version of eventsas just outlined, all opposition to Columbanus occurred because Brunhildfeared her own loss of power and convinced the court and bishops to attackhim. To emphasize this point, Jonas refers to Brunhild as a second Jezebel.77

It is clear that the three decades between Columbanus’ death and thecomposition of his Life served as a boon to Jonas, enabling him to manipu-late facts. While people may have vaguely remembered the conflict amongColumbanus, the royal family, and the bishops, enough time had passed toensure that as long as Jonas mentioned Columbanus’ exile, he could alter


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 34

the events leading up to it.78 It is also possible that a good “spin” on theincident had already occurred within the Columbanian tradition so thatJonas 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 polit-ical situation of the 640s offers a few possible reasons. First, Brunhild’s linehad 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 bene-factors of Columbanian monasticism (table 2.1). It was Chlothar whokilled Sigibert II (613), one of Brunhild’s great-grandsons, as well asBrunhild herself. His court also appears to have begun a smear campaign tojustify his takeover of Burgundy and the unification of all threeMerovingian kingdoms under one ruler. Keeping this in mind, it is under-standable that Jonas would downplay any positive involvement by Brunhildand her descendants in the foundation and support of Annegray, Luxeuil,and Fontaines.79

Jonas states that Sigibert (561–75) was king when Columbanus arrivedin Gaul.80 However, information provided by Columbanus in his lettersshows that he arrived in c.590, approximately fifteen years after Sigibert’sdeath. Chlothar and his court had not condemned Sigibert, even though hewas Brunhild’s husband. In fact, they portrayed him as one of her firstvictims. Chlothar repeatedly referred to laws and privileges granted underKing Sigibert without mentioning the kings who ruled after him. It seemsthat only Brunhild and her descendants were the focus of Chlothar’s revi-sionist history. Clearly Columbanus had arrived in Burgundy and foundedhis monasteries before Chlothar ruled this area. Since Chlothar mentionedSigibert in a positive light, Luxeuil and Jonas likely decided that it wasbetter to place the saint’s arrival under Sigibert and then be silent about anyinteraction with Brunhild and her relatives until the events leading up toColumbanus’ exile in 610.81

However much Jonas tried to minimize the involvement of Brunhildand her family in Columbanus’ monasteries before c.610, it is difficult tobelieve that this was the case. Jonas admits that Columbanus visited theking, whom he identifies as Sigibert, when he first arrived in Gaul. In addi-tion, the land for his monasteries most likely came from royal grants. Thefact that Brunhild expected Columbanus to bless her great-grandchildrenand Theuderic threatened to cut off all aid when Columbanus refused himentry to the inner precincts of Luxeuil also supports a theory of a close rela-tionship between Columbanus and the Burgundian royal family.82

Another sign of royal patronage and protection is the fact that althoughColumbanus refused to appear at the Council of Chalon in c.603, nothing


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 35

happened to him until after Brunhild and Theuderic withdrew theirsupport in c.609. This can be contrasted to the experience of BishopDesiderius of Vienne, who also may have criticized concubinage and whowas exiled at Chalon after angering Brunhild. Desiderius would later returnfrom exile, but he was eventually killed, supposedly at Brunhild’s orders.83

The main difference between Columbanus and Desiderius in c.603 is thefact that Columbanus had royal backing while Desiderius did not.84

While Jonas appears to have glossed over the involvement of Brunhildand her family, this is not the case when it comes to King Chlothar ofNeustria. According to Jonas, when Columbanus arrived in Neustria,Chlothar “received Columbanus as a veritable gift from heaven and beggedthat he would remain.”85 Even when Columbanus chastised him for abusesat the court, “Chlothar promised to correct everything according toColumbanus’ command, for he zealously loved wisdom, and rejoiced in theblessing which he had secured.”86 Before leaving the court, Columbanusprophesized that Chlothar would rule all three Merovingian kingdomswithin three years.87 It is impossible to know whether Columbanus actuallymade such a prediction, but given the political situation in the 640s, it isnot surprising that Jonas would portray the relationship between Chlotharand Columbanus in such a positive light.

Despite what Jonas reports, then, it is clear that Columbanus interactedwith the Burgundian royal family from the time he first arrived in thekingdom. On the whole, this relationship was a beneficial one from whichColumbanus and his monasteries received protection and support. It wasonly after the dispute in c.609, that Columbanus lost royal support and hadto leave the kingdom. Due to the political realities of the 630s and 640s,Jonas did his best to negate the positive relationship between Columbanusand Brunhild’s family. Following the lead of the Burgundian court of hisown day, Jonas portrayed Brunhild as the second Jezebel and Columbanusas an innocent victim in her evil schemes.

Merovingian Bishops

Theoretically, bishops had tremendous power. In regional church councilsthroughout the sixth century, the Frankish episcopacy outlined their juris-diction. According to the canons no monasteries could be founded withoutepiscopal support, an abbot could not rule more than one monastery andhad to report annually to his bishop, a monastery could not make impor-tant decisions without episcopal confirmation, and fasts and worship wereunder diocesan control.88 In addition, the writings of the sixth-century poetVenantius Fortunatus describe the power and patronage of the Merovingian


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 36

bishops.89 However, historians have realized that both the canons and thepoems of Venantius Fortunatus celebrating the bishops of Gaul portray theideal of episcopal power, not the reality.90

While there were powerful bishops, their influence could be limited byimportant kings and aristocratic families. Kings were routinely involved inepiscopal elections, either by actually appointing the new bishop or givingfinal approval to an episcopal candidate.91 Some bishops were former mem-bers of the royal court. This was the case for Eligius of Noyon, Audoin ofRouen, Paul of Verdun, Sulpicius of Bourges, and Arnulf of Metz, all ofwhom had been a part of Chlothar II’s court before being elevated to theepiscopacy.92 Once in power, bishops also needed royal support. Variousprimary sources demonstrate the consequences for a bishop who defied theking 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 thecrown.96 As mentioned above, Desiderius, bishop of Vienne, was deposed,exiled, and eventually murdered under Brunhild’s orders. Once a bishoplost royal patronage, it appears to have been very difficult to withstandeither secular or ecclesiastical opposition.

Columbanus and the Merovingian Bishops

In the popular literature on the Celtic Church, some argue that the Irishbelieved abbots had more authority than bishops. However, Columbanus’writings do not support this theory. His attitude toward the Frankishepiscopacy is seen most clearly in his letter to the bishops at Chalon.Columbanus briefly highlights the problems with the Victorian table andchastises the bishops for the corruption, simony, and avarice he saw in theChurch. He states that these have arisen because of pride and arrogance.97

He argues that the Church, in imitation of Christ, should promote humilityand good works. Those who lead must practice what they preach or themessage of truth will be undermined. True unity will only occur when allfocus on humbly following Christ.98

This stress on humility and good works is important for at least threereasons. First, Columbanus is echoing the sentiments found in PopeGregory’s Pastoral Care. Gregory emphasized the need for leaders to preachthrough both word and deed.99 In this work, the pope also demandedthat those who rule avoid prideful thinking at all costs.100 Those blindedby arrogance and sin should never lead the Church.101 In order to avoidthese problems, the pastor should withdraw and focus on God through


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 37

contemplation. By doing this, he would be better able to see both his ownfaults and the dangers facing his followers. However, the inner life neededto be balanced by service as well.102

Besides demonstrating an affinity with Gregorian thought, the emphasison humility is crucial to Columbanus’ claim that the Celtic-84 is the cor-rect Easter table. If both sides humbly submitted, then they would be ableto see more clearly and to judge which tradition was correct.103 Columbanushad no doubt that the Celtic-84 would be chosen since it did not advocatedark Easters and had the support of the Church fathers.

As with his letter to Pope Boniface, Columbanus believed that he hadthe right to criticize the leadership of the Church when they erred.Columbanus’ authority to chastise and teach the clergy of Burgundy hadlittle to do with the fact that he was an abbot per se. If he had beencorrupted by malice or pride then he would have forfeited his rights as aservant of Christ. Christian leaders should strive to be “humble and chaste,simple-hearted and guileless in evil, yet wise in goodness, easy to beentreated and not retaining anger.”104 These are difficult aims for those withworldly distractions and hearts still set on sin.

However, as one who was poor and weak in Christ, Columbanus feltthat he had a responsibility to speak out against what he saw as a failure ofleadership by the bishops; how great a sin it would be to see those who ledthe Church fall into error and not care enough to defend the truth. Thebishops were the shepherds who led the flock. To do this, they had toimitate Christ and teach correct doctrine and practices.105 They also neededto stop persecuting Columbanus and his followers.106

Columbanus states that he decided to write rather than attend the synodfor fear of the quarrel that would arise if he were there in person. He specif-ically states that he is a “junior” speaking to his “fathers.” In light of this,Columbanus’ authority to reprimand the bishops rests in his humble imita-tion of Christ. It was because of this that he was able to see the problems inthe Church. As with the pope, what Columbanus desired was that thebishops fulfill their God-appointed duties as heirs to the apostles.

In addition to Columbanus’ refusal to attend the Council of Chalon, theexistence of a papal exemption for the monastery of Bobbio has been usedto demonstrate that Columbanus did not respect episcopal power.107 Thisexemption was granted in 628 by Pope Honorius and removed the monasteryfrom episcopal jurisdiction. Since Bobbio was one of Columbanus’ founda-tions, the exemption supposedly demonstrates that he left a legacy thatwas determined to limit episcopal power and reinforce the authority ofabbots.

However, far from being a major break in tradition, members of theMerovingian Church had been obtaining immunities and protections for


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 38

various monastic communities since the late sixth century.108 In 599, PopeGregory the Great upheld an earlier privilege granted by King Childebert toa monastery in Arles, which protected the monastery’s property and allowedit to choose its own abbots without episcopal interference. In c.602,Brunhild wrote to Gregory the Great asking him to grant protection tothree of her foundations in Autun. These requests also focused on propertyand the right of the king and religious foundation to elect the abbot with-out episcopal interference.109 Furthermore, in the late sixth century, themonastery of the Holy Cross did not acknowledge the authority of its localbishop, but instead looked to the bishop of Tours.110

Thus, it should not be argued that the idea of obtaining special privilegesto limit episcopal power or control came from Ireland to the Continent viaColumbanus. It is true that the second generation of Columbanian monkswould obtain more sweeping protections than before, but rather than seeingthe exemptions from the late 620s on as a new influence from the “CelticChurch,” it is important to view them as a logical development from theearlier 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 thesole reason for episcopal opposition to Columbanus. However, controversysurrounding Easter dating most likely flared in 609/10 with the removal ofroyal protection.112 In addition, the bishops were probably upset with theway Columbanus had been able to ignore both a summons to attend asynod and then its ruling. Columbanus’ close ties with the royal family asevidenced by the endowments he received for his monasteries would haveworried any bishop attempting to gain the support and backing of the kingand his court. Keeping this in mind, it is not surprising that the bishopssupported the royal court when it turned against Columbanus. Once hehad lost royal backing, he was not able to defend himself against their accu-sations. The conflict between Columbanus and the bishops was not a directresult of Theuderic and Brunhild turning against him. Royal support was,however, one of the most important factors in terms of Columbanus’ abilityto withstand antagonism.

When Jonas was writing the Life of Columbanus, he faced the formidablechallenge that, by the late 620s, the Columbanian monasteries had aban-doned the Celtic-84 and had adopted the Victorian table.113 Jonas neededto create a reason for the conflict between the bishops and Columbanus


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 39

without portraying the saint in error. Therefore, he did not discuss theletters to the papacy or the Council of Chalon in c.603, but insteadpresented the conflict as stemming from Brunhild’s influence. Jonas statesthat once Brunhild convinced the bishops to attack Columbanus, theircomplaints focused on his monastic rule; no mention is made of Eastertables.114 By the 640s, a number of monasteries in Merovingian Gaul hadadopted either Columbanus’ Rule or a mixed rule that included portions ofhis text. Since many of Jonas’ readers would have seen nothing wrong withthe Columbanian Rule, by centering opposition around this, Jonasreinforced the myth that the charges against Columbanus were insubstan-tial and politically, rather than religiously, motivated. In this way, Jonascountered any memories of conflict between Columbanus andthe Merovingian ecclesiastical leadership by providing an explanation forthese events which fit within the model of sanctity he was creating for theColumbanian tradition.

Jonas had an additional problem that by the 640s, many bishopsthroughout the Merovingian kingdoms were patrons of the Columbaniantradition.115 Therefore, Jonas needed to be careful not to condemn theepiscopacy as a whole. This is another reason for placing the blame for anycontroversy so heavily on Brunhild. According to the Life, while some of theMerovingian episcopacy did turn against Columbanus, it was due toBrunhild’s guile and treachery. The episcopal support the Columbaniantradition enjoyed in c.640 may have added yet another reason for Jonas’silence about the Council of Chalon. The bishops would not have wantedChristians 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 thereuntil his death in 615 (map 2.1). There is no evidence of the episcopalopposition that existed in Merovingian Gaul for a number of reasons. First,he was in Lombardy for less than three years, as opposed to the approxi-mately twenty years he spent in Burgundy. In addition, there would havebeen little discussion over Easter because the Celtic-84 and Victorian tableswere in agreement in 614 and 615. Furthermore, the Church in northernItaly, as discussed above, was in the midst of a major schism concerning theThree Chapters controversy and had broken off communion with Rome.116

Finally, the king and many others in northern Italy were Arian, while thequeen and her court were Chalcedon Christians. Disagreements over Easterdating were probably not high on the list of problems for the LombardChurch at this time.


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 40

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

Summary

Clearly Columbanus had royal patronage wherever he went. Despiteepiscopal opposition to the Celtic-84 in Merovingian Gaul, he was able tostay in Burgundy until he lost royal support. He then traveled to Neustriawhere he was well received by Chlothar, and to Austrasia where for a shorttime 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 treatedthe episcopacy with respect even when he thought they followed the wrongtable. He was worried by the simony, greed, and pride he saw within somemembers of the Burgundian hierarchy. While he felt fully justified inchastising the ecclesiastical leadership, he also acknowledged their criticalrole within the Church. It was the bishops who shepherded the Church andencouraged and protected the flock. This did not mean that a humble fol-lower of Christ should unquestioningly obey the bishops if they fell intoerror as they did when they supported the Victorian table and its darkEaster. It was the duty of all Christians to ensure that the Church remainedtrue to the faith and its mission. For Columbanus, the problems within theMerovingian Church would be solved when the bishops decided to turnaway from earthly temptations and humbly submit to Christ. It was onlythen that a “unity of minds and peace and charity [could] . . . beassured.”118

Penance and Penitentials

Columbanus’ penitential is commonly divided into two sections: one con-cerned 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


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 41

have contradicted a superior or refused to obey the rule. Analysis of hispenitential reveals that “A” was composed before “B.” In fact, it has beenargued that “A” may be a penitential text brought to the Continent byColumbanus rather than actually written by the saint. This is because theLatin differs between the two texts and “A” is not as developed in penancesand penalties as “B.”120 There is nothing specific to argue against thistheory. Columbanus is not known to have given spiritual guidance topriests or the laity while he was in Ireland, though admittedly informationon this period is sketchy at best. Whether Columbanus wrote “A” or simplybrought this text to the Continent, once he began to interact with the cler-ics and laity in Merovingian Gaul, he penned the “B” section to account forhis altered pastoral circumstances.

In a number of different ways, Columbanus’ work forms a bridgebetween earlier and later penitentials. The first penitentials tended to focuseither on monks, clergy, or laity, but not all three, while later ones routinelyfeature all three groups. The Penitential of Columbanus, then, shows onestep in the process of this development. Though portions were written atdifferent times, he did address all three groups.121 Columbanus incorpo-rated components of earlier penitentials into his document as well. In fact,Columbanus depended heavily upon the Penitential of Finnian (c.550) forthe “B” section of his work.122 Of the thirty topics concerning clerics andthe laity, fifteen can be traced to the influence of Finnian’s instructions.123

In turn, later penitentials, such as the eighth-century Burgundian, usedColumbanus’ penitential for inspiration.124

In recent years, historians have been emphasizing the variety of the typesof penance used on the Continent and within the Celtic tradition as well. Itis incorrect to imagine a dichotomy where the Celts used only privatepenance and the rest of the Church only public. The situation was muchmore complex than this.125 For instance, in his penitential, Columbanusstates that if a layman has Holy Communion with a heretic, “he must rankamong the catechumens, that is, separated from other Christians, for fortydays and for two other forty-day periods in the lowest rank of Christians,that is among the penitents.”126 This passage implies that Columbanusassumed that in any congregation, there would be penitents undergoing themore traditional form of public penance where they progressed throughstages, separated from full communion until restored by the bishop.127 Onthe other hand, there is evidence of the use of private penance on theContinent from the sixth century.128

The introduction of penitentials does not seem to have created controversyin the Merovingian or Lombard Churches in the early seventh century.Examining the council records for the Merovingian Church revealed thatsix discussed penance, but none of these were held during Columbanus’


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 42

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

Conclusion

Understanding Columbanus’ interactions with the churches inMerovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy is a critical piece in accurately recon-structing the Celtic tradition. To do this, it is important to separate, asmuch as possible, Columbanus’ personality from his beliefs. Controversyfollowed him throughout his life on the Continent and his letters demon-strate that diplomacy was not always his forte. This should not be inter-preted as proof that Columbanus thought abbots were the highest authorityin the Church or that he represented a young, vital tradition condemningan older, corrupt one. Looking closely at Columbanus’ letters, it is clear thathe respected the hierarchy of the Church, and especially the pope. In linewith contemporary ideas on the episcopacy and the papacy, Columbanusfelt he had the right to criticize them if they were departing from the truth.

In addition, Columbanus maintained close connections with the royalcourt and aristocracy wherever he went. He was not a disinterested outsider.In fact, due to the lack of family ties in Merovingian Gaul and LombardItaly, he was very dependent upon royal support and protection. The royalfamilies provided him with land on which to build his monasteries and theyprotected him from episcopal opposition. In return, they expected hisblessings 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-84was the correct table and saw numerous problems with the Victorian. Thiswas not just an issue of diversity in traditional practices. In his opinion, theVictorian table advocated dark Easters thereby denying the need for Christ’s


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 43

death and resurrection. In addition, Victorius ignored the teachings ofScripture and the Church fathers. On top of this, diversity in Easter datingundermined the unity of Church. In order to solve the controversy,Columbanus appealed to the pope to rule against the Victorian table. Onlywhen the Burgundian bishops refused to abandon the Victorian, and nosupport from the papacy was forthcoming, did Columbanus propose acompromise where his followers could continue to use the Celtic-84 andthe Franks would remain in error by following the Victorian.

It is important to remember that the Frankish episcopacy also was con-cerned with the Easter controversy. It is true that Columbanus seems tohave had positive relationships with some of the bishops, but his letters tothe papacy, the calling of the Council of Chalon, and the episcopal supportfor his exile in c.610 point to the seriousness of the issues for the FrankishChurch. It was not until the Columbanian communities decided to aban-don the Celtic-84 after the Synod of Mâcon in 626/27 that the conflict wasfinally resolved.

One area where Celtic traditions had the most lasting influence was inthe use of tariff penance and the penitentials. While private penance wasnot new to the Continent, frequent confession to a priest coupled with theuse of penitentials does seem to be a Celtic import, first developed in theBritish Church and transported to Ireland. The theology and the practice ofconfession would continue to develop throughout the Middle Ages, but theCeltic “handbooks of penance” are a crucial step in this process.


1403972990ts03.qxd 18/7/06 9:19 PM Page 44

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 supportremained unbroken. However, there were a number of major changes in theColumbanian tradition. First, the next generation of Columbanian abbotswere not Irish, but Frankish aristocrats. This created increasingly closer tiesbetween the monasteries and powerful families. Second, the Columbanianfoundations slowly abandoned some of the distinctive “Celtic” traits, mostimportantly the Celtic-84, sometime in the mid-620s. However, becauseJonas took great pains to create the image of a continuous progression ofideas and traditions from Columbanus to his successors, none of these tran-sitions 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 inbook 1 of the Life of Columbanus, Jonas often ignored controversial issues inColumbanus’ career. This is especially true for his support of the Celtic-84

1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 45

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 controversiesin the 620s and 630s. Many people who participated in these events werestill alive in the early 640s when Jonas completed the Life. Complete silenceregarding these issues would have undermined Jonas’ authority as an honest,accurate author. It can also be assumed that the Luxeuil and Bobbio com-munities had specific versions of these incidents that they wanted people toremember. While Jonas was silent about the Celtic-84, he was forced toconfront other issues that potentially could have undermined the authorityand 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 areable to see where Jonas skewed information to better fit the goals of theColumbanian communities. Unfortunately, there are no personal lettersfrom the Columbanian abbots in the period after 615. Therefore, evenmore than in book 1, the historian is forced to rely on the Life ofColumbanus. Jonas has produced such an excellent piece of propaganda thatit is often very difficult to reconstruct a more objective version of the eventsof this time.

Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar

There are a few additional sources that can help historians gain a fullerunderstanding of the 620s and 630s. One of these is the fourth book of theChronicle of Fredegar.4 As mentioned in chapter 2, this work ends in 642,though historians disagree about whether the Chronicle was composednearer to 650 or 660.5 The fact that the Chronicle shows the influence of theLife of Columbanus means that it must be dated after the early 640s. Whilethis source is quite contemporary to the events contained in the secondbook of the Life, for the historian analyzing the Columbanian traditionafter 615, the Chronicle provides little information. In the period between615 and 642, the author focused on secular politics, primarily the royalcourts. Therefore, this work can be used to provide some politicalbackground on a few of the secular officials mentioned in the Life ofColumbanus, but not much else is of use on this subject.

Diplomatic Documents

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


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 46

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 ofColumbanus. However, the records of other Merovingian councils can beused to help reconstruct which bishops might have attended the Synod ofMâcon.6 A papal privilege granted to the Bobbio community in 628 byPope Honorius is extant along with other royal grants and privileges.7

While not always helpful, these works add pieces to our knowledge of thiscomplex period.

Ties between the Aristocracy and theColumbanian Foundations

In the seventh century, the Merovingian and Lombard bishops were fromaristocratic families. This was also true of the second and third generationof abbots at the Columbanian foundations. Bertulf, abbot of Bobbio, was ofnoble birth and related to the bishop of Metz.8 Athala, also of Bobbio, wasassociated with Bishop Arigius of Lyons before entering Luxeuil.9 Eustasius,abbot of Luxeuil, was tied to a high-ranking family and was the nephew ofthe bishop of Langres.10 Thus Columbanian abbots had close, personal tieswith the aristocracy that no doubt influenced their political decisions.

In book 1 of the Life of Columbanus, Jonas relates Columbanus’ interac-tions with a number of aristocrats. By the 620s, the children of these menwere gaining power in both ecclesiastical and secular positions, andsupporting the Columbanian tradition.11 For example, after his exile fromBurgundy, Columbanus met Chagneric, count of Meaux.12 In the post–615period, 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 probablyBurgundofara’s brother, became bishop of Meaux and was a patron of themonastery of Rebais.16

Eustasius, Columbanus’ successor at Luxeuil, was also instrumental inestablishing ties with aristocratic families. On a journey to the court of KingChlothar, he stopped at Chagneric’s villa and assisted Burgundofara inentering the religious life.17 On another occasion, when Eustasius wasreturning 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 atLaon under the Columbanian Rule and became its first abbess.19

Columbanian Monasticism after 615 47

1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 47

Part of the attraction of Columbanian monasticism for the aristocracymay have been Columbanus’ preference for rural monasteries. Traditionallyin Gaul, foundations had been associated with large basilicas, often withroyal patronage. Columbanian houses, on the other hand, tended to belocated on rural estates or on land given by the king to a lord specifically forthe establishment of a new community. By appointing family members tolead these new foundations, aristocrats could expand their own power andauthority since this land remained under their jurisdiction.20 This was espe-cially true for women’s communities where land that might have passed toanother through marriage stayed in the family’s control as long as femaledescendants headed the foundation.21

Especially from the 630s onward, the Columbanian tradition had thesupport of many of the Merovingian bishops. This included a number whohad spent time at a Columbanian monastery and those who had not.22

Relations with the Merovingian and Lombard royal courts continued in thepost–615 period as well. For instance Dagobert (623–38) founded com-munities with the Columbanian or mixed rule at Solignac, Saint-Amand,and Rebais.23 Queen Balthild (d. 680) founded Chelles and Corbie and wasa patron of Luxeuil, Faremoutiers, and Jouarre.24 She also establishedmonastic communities at the “senior basilicas,” which may have used amixed rule of Columbanian influence.

By the late 620s, these changes were under way. The number of monas-teries associated with Columbanian tradition had grown dramatically since615, and some of those trained at Luxeuil and her associated monasterieswere becoming leaders in the church. By the 660s, there were numerousmonastic houses using a mixed rule influenced at least in part byColumbanus’. However, it is important not to view “Columbanian monas-ticism” as a monolithic movement under the jurisdiction of Luxeuil. Insteadwhat the post–615 period witnessed was the integration of some aspects ofthe Columbanian tradition into the wider Frankish Church. In turn,Luxeuil and other Columbanian houses were transformed through theadoption 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 ofColumbanus, but one of the most interesting concerns Eustasius, abbot ofLuxeuil, Agrestius, one of his monks, and the Synod of Mâcon held inc.626/27.25 This portion of the Life is critical in reconstructing a very


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 48

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

Jonas’ Version of Events

According to Jonas, Agrestius was a notary who had served under KingTheuderic, but then entered Luxeuil while Eustasius was abbot. AgainstEustasius’ advice, he traveled to convert the Bavarians. When he was unsuc-cessful as a missionary, he went to northern Italy and became a supporter ofthe schismatic Church that had broken communion with Rome over theThree Chapters controversy.26 Agrestius wrote a letter to Athala, abbot ofBobbio, trying to convince him to join the schismatic Church. When thiswas unsuccessful, he returned to Luxeuil, but also was unable to persuadeEustasius to turn against Rome.

Eustasius was eventually forced to expel Agrestius from the monastery. Inretaliation, the rebel monk devised a plan to discredit Eustasius and Luxeuil.He accused the monastery of following heretical practices and he obtainedthe 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 majorsupporters of Columbanus, was persuaded to call a synod at Mâcon to dis-cuss the matter. Jonas explains, however, that the king did not doubt thesanctity 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 theColumbanian tradition. Just before the synod began, Warnachar died.However, even with one of his major supporters dead, Agrestius stillappeared before the bishops and accused Luxeuil of heresy. His evidencewas that the Columbanian Rule advocated making the sign of the cross overinanimate objects, such as spoons; that it required the brothers to ask for ablessing when coming in and out of rooms; and that it used too manyprayers and collects in the Mass.28 Eustasius was easily able to explain thesepractices. Having been refuted, Agrestius added that the tonsure worn bythe Columbanian monks also differed from that used throughout theChurch.29 In so far as Jonas has presented the synod, this did not worry thebishops and they dismissed all charges against Eustasius.

Agrestius’ Role

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


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 49

Jonas implies.30 If the historian were to blindly accept Jonas’ narrative, itwould appear that the ecclesiastical and secular leadership in Gaul had noreal concerns about the Columbanian tradition. Instead, due to jealousyand pride, three lone people—Agrestius, Abelenus, and Warnachar—stirredup dissention for their own selfish reasons. Since the bishops were able tosee through their lies, Eustasius, Luxeuil, and the Columbanian monasterieswere exonerated.

In Jonas’ narrative of the events surrounding the Synod of Mâcon, hemay well have exaggerated Agrestius’ importance.31 Using book 1 for com-parison, Jonas magnified Brunhild’s role in the controversy that led toColumbanus’ exile by implying that all episcopal opposition was actually aresult of her political pressure. By using Agrestius as the focus for the Synodof Mâcon, Jonas helps the reader to conclude that most of the oppositionEustasius’ faced came from an immature, disobedient, schismatic monk andhis political supporters.32

Thus, Agrestius and Warnachar play the same roles as Brunhild andTheuderic in explaining issues of controversy. In book 1, all conflict wasdue to Brunhild’s jealousy and Theuderic’s pride. In book 2, the problemsEustasius faced were because of Agrestius’ resentment and Warnachar’spolitical maneuvering. By constructing the narrative in such a way that thefocus remains on a specific enemy of the Columbanian tradition, Jonas can“explain” the conflict that surrounded Columbanus and his successors with-out raising questions as to whether there was any substantive support forthese 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 synodhad been called for such minor issues. Eustasius argued that there was noth-ing wrong with making the sign of the cross over a spoon or any otherobject. Asking for a blessing when entering or leaving a brother’s cell orsaying extra prayers only fulfilled biblical injunctions.33 The only hint thatthe bishops were concerned about these practices is the fact that they askedEustasius to respond to Agrestius.

Agrestius next accused the Columbanian monks of using a tonsure thatdiffered from the rest of the Church.34 It can be assumed that this was theCeltic tonsure.35 As Jonas would never have included any information thatwould have compromised the reputation of the Columbanian tradition, itcan be reasoned that the Celtic tonsure was not yet controversial. It was only


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 50

as the Easter controversy continued past the 640s that the style of tonsurebecame symbolic of the supporters of the Celtic or Roman tables.

Although the tonsure does not appear to have been a major issue inc.640, Jonas still does what he can in the narrative to disparage Agrestius’accusation. He portrays Agrestius as stuttering and clearly nervous, as if hewas desperate to find something about the Columbanian tradition that thebishops would condemn. Jonas includes no reply by Eustasius, leading thereader to believe that the allegation was so ridiculous the bishops did notbother asking the abbot to respond. If by any chance the tonsure was begin-ning to be of concern in c.627 or c.640, Jonas’ presentation gives the readerno indication that this was the case.

Easter

One matter possibly discussed at Mâcon was the Celtic-84. If the synod metto 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 theperiod leading up to 625, each table listed Easter dates that supporters ofthe rival table would have considered especially troublesome (table 3.1).Take for example the Easter dates in 627. The Celtic-84 table stated thatEaster should occur on April 5 or luna 17, but for those using the Victoriantable, the 5th was luna 14, a date that clearly had problems. The Victoriantable listed April 12 as luna 21, but on the Celtic-84, this was luna 24, adate far past the acceptable lunar limits. Given the increasingly divergentlunar dates, it can be assumed that the Easter controversy continued to bean important issue in the Merovingian Church.

Though the Easter tables had generally not agreed, in 625, 628, and629, the Celtic-84 and Victorian tables listed the same dates. It is interestingthat the Synod of Mâcon was held in the midst of this period when thetables were in general agreement. If the Columbanian communitiesabandoned the Celtic-84 in 627, the 628–29 period would have provided atwo-year span to ensure that all communities had copies of the Victoriantable. This would have eased the transition to a new Easter calculation.

Though Jonas provides no information about Easter, it was probably dis-cussed at Mâcon. If historians did not have Columbanus’ letters to supple-ment book 1 of the Life of Columbanus, it would be easy to assume thatEaster was not an issue of dispute during his lifetime either. We do knowthat by the early 640s when Jonas was writing the Life, the Columbanianhouses had abandoned the Celtic-84. Furthermore, Jonas took great painsto suppress the information that the saint and his monastic foundations hadfollowed a table then regarded by some as heretical.37 It seems likely that as


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 51

at the Council of Chalon in c.603, Easter was a concern and there wasenough interest in this topic for some bishops to want a church council todiscuss the matter.

That Easter was discussed at Mâcon is supported by the fact that themonastery of Bobbio received a papal exemption from episcopal interferencein 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 toBobbio 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



Celtic-84 Victorian

Easter Luna Luna Easter Luna Luna(Victorian) (Celtic-84)

620 April 20 16 13 March 30 21 24621 April 12 18 15 April 19 22 25622 March 28 14 11 April 4 18 21623 April 17 16 14 March 27 21 23624 April 8 17 14 April 15 21 24625 March 31 20 17 March 31 17 20626 April 13 14 11 April 20 18 21627 April 5 17 14 April 12 21 24628 March 27 19 16 March 27 16 19629 April 16 20 17 April 16 17 20630 April 1 16 13 April 8 20 23631 April 21 18 15 March 24 16 19632 April 12 19 16 April 12 16 19633 March 28 15 13 April 4 20 22634 April 17 17 14 April 24 21 24635 April 9 20 17 April 9 17 20636 April 21 14 11 March 31 19 22637 April 13 16 13 April 20 20 23638 April 5 19 16 April 5 16 19639 April 18 14 11 March 28 19 22640 April 9 15 12 April 16 19 22641 April 1 18 15 April 1 or 8 15/22 18/25

Note: Bold � tables in agreement

Source: Celtic-84 Easter and luna dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19, modernized andcycled 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 andDionysiac,” p. 411; alternative luna dates and all other adjustments for Victorian dating by C. Corning.

1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 52

supported a position of loyalty to Rome rather than schism, it would beunderstandable why papal protection was given in 628.

In addition, an earlier Merovingian Church council was called byChlothar in 626/27 at Clichy.38 Unlike Mâcon, this council had represen-tatives from Neustria as well as Burgundy. Among other things, the councilresolved that bishops and priests should track down heretics in order toensure the triumph of the Catholic faith.39 The records of Clichy make nomention of the Columbanian tradition or Easter, but it is intriguing thatthe Synod of Mâcon met so soon after Clichy since it demonstrates thatheresy was a current topic of conversation in 626.

It seems likely that the Columbanian communities continued to use theCeltic-84 table until just after the Synod of Mâcon. This would explainboth Agrestius’ accusations of heresy and the fact that the papacy wassupporting Bobbio by 628. Since Jonas did not want to point out thatColumbanus had once advocated an heretical table, he simply avoided allmention of this subject.

The Role of Secular Officials

Another indication that the Synod of Mâcon was more important thanJonas implies is the participation of Warnachar and Chlothar in the eventsleading up to the council. Warnachar was the Burgundian maior. The per-son who occupied this office was usually the highest ranking noble after theking. According to Fredegar, Warnachar had been an important noble atTheuderic’s court and had originally supported Brunhild. However, afterdiscovering a letter in which Brunhild ordered his death, Warnacharswitched his support to Chlothar.40

After Theuderic died, Chlothar conquered Burgundy and disposed ofTheuderic’s heirs. Warnachar helped to arrest Brunhild and handed her overto Chlothar to be executed. Possibly because of his loyal service, Chlotharappointed Warnachar maior in Burgundy.41 As Chlothar was rarely inBurgundy, its maior became very powerful under his rule.42

Jonas makes it clear that the Synod of Mâcon involved only the Burgundianbishops. Therefore, it is not surprising that Agrestius and Abelenus approachedWarnachar with the idea of a synod to condemn the Columbanian tradition.He was one of the highest ranking nobles in the kingdom and his supportwould be needed to convince the king to call a synod.

Chlothar, at least according to the Life of Columbanus, had been a majorsupporter of Columbanus and his monasteries since 613. It is hard to explainwhy Chlothar allowed the council to be held since, in theory, he could haverefused to call the bishops together. It is possible, as Jonas indicates, that he


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 53

assumed the case would be decided in Luxeuil’s favor. In this way the synodwould actually strengthen the Columbanian tradition rather than weaken it.He also may have believed that this was an issue that dealt primarily with theBurgundian kingdom and thus decided not to interfere. He did not attend thecouncil himself. Warnachar was the most important secular official there.

The relationship between the Burgundian maior and his king is difficult toreconstruct.43 Chlothar visited Burgundy only once while he was king, leavingthe day-to-day matters of the kingdom in Warnachar’s hands. Jonas states thatit was Warnachar who appointed Bishop Treticus of Lyons, a known enemy ofEustasius, to lead the council.44 If it is true that Chlothar supported Eustasiuswhile Warnachar was against him, then the Synod of Mâcon could representone 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 acompromise than a unanimous statement of approval for the Columbaniantradition. In the wake of Mâcon, Luxeuil and her associated monasterieswere forced to abandon the Celtic-84 Easter table and, most likely, theCeltic tonsure. However, the use of extra blessings and prayers was seen aspart of the liturgical variations of the day and nothing of major concern.

Since Jonas is the only source who mentions the synod, many questionsare left unanswerable. In the Life, Agrestius is presented as the mainscapegoat for all the conflict that led to Mâcon, but the situation was morecomplex than this. It would be helpful to know which bishops attended thesynod and their affiliations for or against Luxeuil. Unfortunately, Jonas givesthe 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. Themaximum possible attendance at Mâcon was six metropolitans and thirty-sixbishops. Of these, it is possible to identify twenty-three of them, but for onlyfive can their political leanings be determined.45

Knowledge of the familial and secular connections of the bishops as wellas the relationship between Chlothar and Warnachar would help to deter-mine 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 betweenthe two that cannot be identified. The increasing power of Luxeuil and thenobles and bishops associated with this tradition could well have influencedthose attending Mâcon, not to mention the relationship with Chlothar andthe Burgundian court. Therefore, historians know that Jonas is not giving


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 54

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

Bobbio and External Conflict

Soon after the Synod of Mâcon, Bobbio faced its own challenges. Jonasstates that c.628, Probus, bishop of Tortona, attempted to exert firmer con-trol over Bobbio. Jonas explains that Probus was motivated by pride andthat the only way he gained support from other bishops and aristocrats wasthrough bribery.46 Thus, Jonas, as usual, discounts the notion that thebishop and his supporters had any real grievances: rather all the oppositionBobbio faced was due to pride and greed.

Probus and his supporters attempted to obtain the backing of theLombard King Arioald (626–36). He refused to become involved andinstead told them to look to canon law. Bertulf, abbot of Bobbio, contactedthe king as well and received support for a journey to Rome to petition thepope for assistance.47 Bertulf and a number of monks, including Jonas, thentraveled 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 wayof life. He encouraged him to continue to fight the spread of Arianism andgranted Bobbio a papal privilege removing the monastery from episcopalcontrol.49 Next, Jonas relates that Bertulf became deathly ill traveling backto Bobbio. On the feast day of Sts. Peter and Paul (June 28), St. Peterappeared in a vision and healed him.50 This was obviously a very appropriatevision for an abbot who was an “ally” of the papacy and a clear sign thatSt. Peter approved of the Columbanian tradition.

One reason Jonas included this narrative was because of his desire todiscuss the background of Honorius’ papal privilege. This was an importantevent in the history of Bobbio. The granting of the papal exemptionremoving the monastery from episcopal control was proof that thepapacy endorsed the Columbanian tradition. Without the knowledge ofColumbanus’ letters, it would appear to the reader that the first timeanyone from a Columbanian foundation approached Rome, the papacyresponded with unrestricted approval.

The privilege granted by Honorius provided Bobbio with more inde-pendence from episcopal authority than any previous papal privilege hadallowed, though it did place the monastery directly under papal supervision.51

Looking at the wider political situation, there were a number of reasons for


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 55

Honorius to grant such a petition. First, much of the northern ItalianChurch was still in schism with Rome over the Three Chapterscontroversy.52 In 628, the Archbishopric of Istria had two archbishops: theschismatic bishop located at Aquileia and the orthodox bishop at Grado.53

The Archbishop of Milan had transferred his support to the papacy, butmany of his suffragans had not.54 Therefore, the Three Chapters remaineda major issue in the Lombard kingdom.55

Columbanus had questioned the papal position on the Three Chapters inhis letter to Pope Boniface in c.613, but he never advocated splitting fromRome.56 Jonas includes the information that Agrestius, who supported theschismatic position, wrote a letter to Athala encouraging him to condemnthe papacy. However, Athala refused.57 According to Jonas, Eustasius alsowould not break from Rome.58 Thus, there was a history of support from theColumbanian monasteries for the papacy. In addition, it is clear that Athalaand Eustasius supported the papal condemnation of the Three Chapters,unlike Columbanus. With the schism in northern Italy and rememberingthat by 628 Bobbio had abandoned the alternative Celtic practices, it isunderstandable 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 whowas Arian. While the previous king, Adaloald, had been a schismaticChristian, in 626 he was deposed and Arioald became king.60 The situationwas a blow for Honorius, not only because the king was Arian, but alsobecause the pope had actively supported Adaloald.61 An interesting aspectof the coup is that at least some of the bishops in northern Italy supportedArioald, thus placing Honorius and the Lombard episcopacy on oppositesides. Remembering that Bobbio was a royal monastery and, if Jonas is cor-rect, Bertulf had received royal support to go to Rome, Honorius may havefelt that it was a wise political move to favor a monastery that traditionallyhad 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 wouldprovide Bertulf the opportunity to convince Arioald to abandon his hereticalways. Involvement in a dispute with the episcopal hierarchy would haveonly distracted Bertulf from this mission.

Summary

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


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 56

do with the alternative Celtic practices. Like Luxeuil, Bobbio had a groupof associated monasteries whose abbots came from important familiesthereby increasing the monastery’s political power. It is possible that Bobbiohad been granted royal protection from its founding, but with the ascensionof a new king, this alliance may have been in doubt. It is also possible thatProbus saw the period c.626–28 as an excellent opportunity to assert morecontrol over Bobbio and its network of monasteries while the crown wasbusy attempting to solidify its own power.

This conflict precipitated the events that would end in a papal privilege forBobbio and cement its importance in the Italian Church. Pope Honorius sawa number of benefits in granting such independence to Bobbio. First, themonastery had abandoned its alternative Celtic practices and was firmly inthe pro-papal camp. Since the court supported Arianism, and much of theLombard Church refused to acknowledge the papacy, it was critically impor-tant that Honorius support those who were willing to ally with Rome. Inaddition, as was mentioned in chapter 2, the papacy had been granting morelimited papal protection to monastic houses, especially those with royal pro-tection, since the late sixth century. Though Honorius granted Bobbio themost extensive papal privilege to date, this should not be viewed as a radicalbreak, but a logical development. Church councils, individual bishops, andthe 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 whileAthala (615–26) was abbot.62 Many of the monks were upset with the Ruleand rebelled against their abbot. Those monks, “stained with the vice ofarrogance,” were punished by God.63 Jonas reports that one monk died offever, another was killed by an axe and two others drowned: one while cross-ing a small stream and another when his boat sank. When the other dis-obedient 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 whereBurgundofara was abbess. There are four stories of nuns who attempted toleave the monastery or who refused to follow the Rule because they were ledaway by the devil and/or due to their own arrogance and pride.64 Jonasstates that all of these women were unable to handle the “unaccustomeddiscipline” of the convent. However, the reader is given the impression thatthese problems were much more limited in scope than the rebellion at


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 57

Bobbio. It appears that only seven or eight nuns participated in theseattempts to escape or disobey the Rule.

In addition, after the Synod of Mâcon narrative, Jonas includes infor-mation on a rebellion at Remiremont, a monastery associated with Luxeuil.According to Jonas, Agrestius convinced Amatus and Romaric to opposeEustasius.65 Both of these men had been monks at Luxeuil while Eustasiuswas abbot. According to the Life of Amatus, it was Eustasius who convincedAmatus to transfer from St. Maurice d’Agaune to Luxeuil.66 Romaric estab-lished the monastic community of Remiremont with Eustasius’ permissionand Amatus became the first abbot of the new foundation.67 Thus, bothmen knew Eustasius well and yet still decided to support Agrestius evenafter he was unsuccessful at Mâcon.68

According to Jonas, Agrestius persuaded Amatus and Romaric to makealterations to the Columbanian Rule in use at Remiremont and to disobeyEustasius. Many of the monks at the monastery supported this decision.Jonas explains that Amatus and Romaric rebelled against Eustasius becauseof personal grievances, not because there was anything wrong with theColumbanian monastic tradition.69 Having already established Agrestius asschismatic and disobedient, his participation in this event only reinforcesthe fact that this internal rebellion was all part of the greater plot byAgrestius to attack the Columbanian tradition. Therefore, Jonas once againexonerated Luxeuil from any blame for these controversies.

Jonas also includes the information that after the rebellion, rabid wolvesbroke into the monastery and killed two of Agrestius’ supporters.70 Anothermonk went insane and killed himself. Then a lightning bolt killed an addi-tional twenty rebellious monks and nuns. The violence ended with the mur-der of Agrestius by one of his servants.71 Clearly God was incensed with thesemen and women for questioning the Columbanian Rule. After these deaths,both Amatus and Romaric begged forgiveness and were reconciled withEustasius. Amatus died soon after this in 628 and Romaric became the nextabbot of Remiremont. Both seem to have remained loyal followers after thisrebellion. Lives for Amatus and Romaric survive but neither mentions anyproblems with Eustasius or the Rule. Therefore, just as Jonas needed to con-struct the presentation of Columbanus and his successor abbots in a way thatdid not undermine their sanctity, the author of the Life of Amatus needed tocounter the allegations of the Life of Columbanus without mentioning eventsbetter left forgotten from the viewpoint of Remiremont.

Problems with the Columbanian Rules

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


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 58

“discipline” of the Rule, but provides no specifics. It is possible to compareColumbanus’ surviving Rules with the later mixed rules to see what has beenchanged, but this is complicated by the fact that his Rules include little guid-ance on daily operations. Since it would be impossible to run a monasterysolely on Columbanus’ Rules as they survive in written form, it must beassumed that much of the Columbanian “way of life” was orally transmitted.The monks who rebelled at Bobbio and Remiremont, and those whomColumbanus warns about in his letter to Athala, may have been upset withelements which were never written down.72 It is possible that some of themonks were willing to tolerate the extreme discipline and alternative prac-tices 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, dis-cretion, humility, and perfection.74 One of the most detailed sections con-cerns the different times the community should gather together incorporate prayer. Columbanus was particularly concerned that the monksnot become too tired praying numerous psalms at the night offices duringthe summer. Through most of the medieval period, time was reckonedsomewhat differently than it is today. While there were twenty-four hoursin a day, there were always twelve hours of daylight and twelve hours ofdarkness. Therefore, the hour was not set at a uniform sixty minutes.During the summer months the night hours would be shorter than in thewinter. This meant that the monks had little time to both sleep and partic-ipate in the night offices. This was especially true when on some Saturdaysand Sundays a total of seventy-five psalms were recited at Matins.75

Recognizing this problem, Columbanus mandated that the greatest numberof Psalms would be chanted during the winter months and then they wouldgradually decrease until the middle of summer. However, it should be notedthat even with this sliding scale, Columbanus’ monks chanted an unusuallylarge number of psalms in the night offices.76 Apart from this section andone concerning meals, the Monks’ Rule is largely theoretical. It is concernedwith 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 listsdifferent disobediences, each with their corresponding punishment.78 It isnot well organized or arranged in any system. Section two of the Ruleshould help to illustrate the point:

If he has not blessed the lamp, that is, when it is lighted by a younger brotherand is not presented to a senior for his blessing, with six blows. If he hascalled anything his own, with six blows. Let him who has cut the table witha knife be corrected with ten blows. Whoever of the brethren, to whom the


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 59

care of cooking or serving has been entrusted, has spilt any drop, it isordained to correct him by prayer in church after the end of the office, so thatthe brethren pray for him. Let him who has forgotten the prostration . . . atthe office . . . do penance likewise. In the same manner let him who has lostthe crumbs be corrected by prayer in church.79

There is some tie between spilling things while serving and cutting thetable, but it is harder to see how claiming ownership of objects or nothaving a lamp blessed fits with this topic. Analyzing the Rule is complicatedby the fact that it was likely revised after Columbanus’ death. There arelanguage differences between the two parts of the Rule, and later sectionsdisagree with the instructions outlined in the Monks’ Rule. For instance,section thirteen of the Communal Rule states that monks should not eatbefore the ninth hour on Wednesdays and Fridays. In the Monks’ Rule, thisis the instruction for every day.80 It is unclear whether Columbanuschanged his mind between the composition of the two rules or whether thisreflects later additions by his successors.

During the early medieval period, each abbot created a monastic rulethat fit his monastery’s specific circumstances. Soon after Columbanus’death, his Rule began to appear in combination with other rules such asBenedict’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 combinedthe Benedictine and Columbanian Rules. From Benedict, Donatus usedchapters on the election of an abbess and her character, as well as the respon-sibilities and character of the prioress, porter, and cellaress.82 He also includedBenedict’s discussion on good works, humility, and the specifics on excom-munication.83 From the Columbanian Rules, he included sections on gossip,forgetting to bless objects and receiving blessings, those who disturb meals orservices, and the punishments for spilling or wasting food and drink.84

Donatus also seems to have used Columbanus’ instructions for meals, thoughin moderated form.85 On the whole, Donatus adopted Columbanus’ instruc-tions and punishments without much alteration. He seems to have chosenportions of Benedictine Rule more to provide information whereColumbanus was vague than to mitigate any harsh aspects of his Rule.

When a mixed rule was introduced at Luxeuil and Bobbio, some ofthe Benedictine Rule was adopted. If the Rule by Donatus is indicative ofthe mixed rule used at Luxeuil and Bobbio, then it does not appear that thisnew Rule was intrinsically less “harsh” or “strict” than the older one. IfJonas were correct that the monks and nuns at Bobbio, Luxeuil, andFaremoutiers were upset because the Rule was too severe, then the Rule forNuns would support the idea that they rebelled against parts of the Rulewhich were only transmitted orally and thus are impossible to reconstruct.


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 60

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 themixed rule used at Bobbio by 643.86 If this Rule does post-dateColumbanus, then it can also provide information on the problems withthe Columbanian Rules. While the Rule of the Master includes some ofColumbanus’ advice on the night office and the blessing of inanimateobjects, his disciplinary practices have been replaced with the more moder-ate Benedictine.87 If the Rule of the Master was used at Bobbio, it supports atheory that the monks and nuns were frustrated with discipline outlined inthe Columbanian Rules. Thus, the differences between Donatus’ Rule and theRule of the Master complicate identifying the specific issues that led themonks and nuns to rebel.

Summary

Therefore, the fact that Jonas included narratives detailing dissensionwithin the Columbanian houses suggests that there must have been someremembrance of these events, and that Bobbio and Luxeuil wanted toprovide an official explanation for the Columbanian communities and theirwide circle of supporters. Information about the God-given punishments ofthose who rebelled would have been an important message from the pointof 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 Bobbiowas due to the alternative Celtic Easter and tonsure. There is some hint ofdissension at Luxeuil over the Celtic-84 in Columbanus’ letter to Athala,though not in the Life.88 The abandonment of these practices by c.628would have quelled opposition on this point. Since Jonas does not want thereader to know that Columbanus followed schismatic practices, he simplyexplains the rebellion as focused on the “harshness” of the rule, thus makingthe 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 monas-teries were using mixed rules of Benedictine and Columbanian influence bythe 630s, the rebellions in the late 620s were probably linked to frustrationwith portions of the Rule left by Columbanus that were seen as overlyharsh. The monks may have been willing to submit to such discipline undertheir charismatic founder, but not from the abbots who followed.

The 620s and early 630s were a time of compromise and adjustment forthe Columbanian houses. Bobbio and Luxeuil had new abbots: Bertulf(626–39) at Bobbio and Waldebert (629–70) at Luxeuil. Both houses


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 61

adopted the Victorian table and Roman tonsure and firmly supported thepapacy in the midst of controversy. In response to internal rebellions somechanges were made to the Rule and even at Luxeuil a new mixed rule wasintroduced 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 forGod.” As mentioned, the idea of undertaking a voluntary exile in order tobe 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 involvedin ministry and missions before heading to the Continent in c.641.91 TheNeustrian maior Erchinoald (c.640–58) helped him establish monasteries atLagny and Fontenelle.92 After Fursey’s death in 649, Erchinoald founded anew monastery at Péronne to house the saint’s body.

Fursey’s brother, Foillán (d. 658), then became abbot of Péronne until hewas forced to flee to Austrasia. There a new monastery was set up at Fosseswith the help of Itta, mother of the Austrasian maior Grimoald. Foillán alsowas influential at the double monastery of Nivelles.93

Subsequently, another brother, Ultán (d. 686), became abbot of bothFosses and Péronne. These monasteries would be identified as “Irish” inliterature for the next few generations and as late as c.779, Péronne had anabbot of Irish heritage.94 They also became cult centers for Irish saints. Forinstance, Fursey and his brothers brought relics of St. Patrick to theContinent.95 This is quite different from Luxeuil and Bobbio where menfrom 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 hadswitched to the Victorian table and the Roman tonsure.96 While all threebrothers were associated with important families in Neustria and Austrasia,and thus were involved in political controversies, no evidence exists indicatingthat the alternative Celtic practices had anything to do with this.

On the other hand, it is probable that these men helped to popularizepenitentials and repeatable penance. Fursey’s Life relates that he had a series


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 62

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

Conclusion

By the time Jonas sat down to compose the Life of Columbanus in the early640s, things had changed since Columbanus’ death in 615. The number ofmonasteries associated with the Columbanian tradition had expanded dra-matically. In addition, these monasteries were supported by royal courts anda number of bishops. This meant that the political and ecclesiastical influ-ence of the Columbanian tradition was assured.

However, much of this had been hard won. Both Bobbio and Luxeuilfaced major internal and external challenges. In the face of these, theColumbanian houses had abandoned some of the Celtic distinctives firstintroduced by Columbanus. Most likely in the late 620s, these monasteriesadopted the Victorian Easter table and the Roman tonsure bringing them inline with the general practices in Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy. Inaddition, alterations were made to the Columbanian Rule, mitigating thecontroversial elements.

However, by the 640s changes had also occurred in the MerovingianChurch as Irish peregrini settled on the continent. The use of tariff penanceand penitentials were becoming more popular, as public penance becamereserved for major, public sins. In addition, the mixed rule with portions ofthe Columbanian Rule was used at many of the monastic foundations inthe Merovingian kingdoms. It is probable that the spread of the mixed rulehelped to popularize the Benedictine Rule throughout Gaul and beyond.This is important since this rule would eventually dominate monasticismthroughout Europe. Even with the increasing use of the Rule of St. Benedict,it would not be until the ninth century under the Carolingian reforms thatit would be used more exclusively. Until that time, Columbanus’ Rules con-tinued to influence monastic leaders throughout the Merovingian andLombard Church.

For modern historians studying Merovingian Gaul and Lombard Italy, itis possible to identify someone as “Irish,” “British,” or “Frankish” but noteasily as a member of a wider “Celtic” circle after the 640s. The


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 63

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


1403972990ts04.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 64

Chapter 4

The British Church and theAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms to c.620

At the same time that Columbanus was establishing his monasteries inMerovingian Gaul, Pope Gregory the Great began planning a mission toconvert the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms located in present-day England. Thepope wrote to leading Merovingians such as Brunhild asking for theirsupport in this endeavor and to provide whatever aid was necessary forthe missionaries. In 596, Augustine (597–604/10), future bishop ofCanterbury, and his party departed Italy for the north, traveling throughthe Merovingian kingdoms to Kent where the papal mission establishedtheir headquarters at the old Roman town of Canterbury (map 4.1).1

In the first years of the seventh century, Augustine came into conflictwith the British Church over their alternative practices, specifically baptismand the Celtic-84. Augustine also wanted the British bishops to submit tohis authority and to assist in converting the Anglo-Saxons. However, theBritish churchmen refused to acknowledge Augustine’s jurisdiction orchange their practices.

The Post-Roman British Church

It is important to remember that the British Church did not disappear withthe withdrawal of Roman troops in the early part of the fifth century.2

Recent studies, in fact, have stressed the continued flourishing of thistradition during the post–Roman period, especially in areas not underAnglo-Saxon domination. Along with St. Patrick, scholars point to the

1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 65

66

St. Albans

London

Wroxeter

ChesterLincoln

Ripon

Whitby

CarlisleWhithorn

Coldingham

Lindisfarne

St. Andrews

EdinburghMelrose

Sutton Hoo

Ruthwell

WearmouthJarrowHexham

ORKNEYISLANDS

P I C T L A N D

DR

UIM

AL

BA

N

NO

RT

HU

MB

RI A

DU

MN

ON

I A

DY F E D

S K Y E

I O N A

I S L E O F M A N

A N G L E S E Y

E L M E T

S T R A T H C L Y E

BERNI CI A

R H E G E D

M I D D LEA N G L E S

K E N T

E A S TA N G L E S

E A S TS A X O N S

M E R C I A

D E I R A

G W Y N E D D

WE S T

S A X O N S

MAGON-SAETE

P O W Y S

Malmesbury

DunbartonDunadd

Dinas Powys

DA

L RI AD

ABamburgh

Canterbury

York

SOUTH SAXONS

HWIC

CE

Map 4.1 Britain

1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 66

possibility of other British clergy traveling to Ireland to assist with conversionand provide pastoral care.3 In fact, parts of the Irish Church may haveremained under some level of British authority through the late fifthcentury.4 Even after this, loan words and other linguistic evidence demon-strate continued British influence on the Irish Church at least until theseventh century.5

Documentary evidence from the fifth and sixth centuries also depicts afunctioning Christian community. In c.475, Constantius of Lyons wrote theLife of St. Germanus of Auxerre in which he discusses a controversy over thePelagian heresy in Britain in c.429.6 Constantius portrays the saint interactingwith Romano-British Christians, not pagans.7 Gildas’ On the Ruin ofBritain, composed before the middle of the sixth century, is a condemnationof the worldliness and sins of British secular and ecclesiastical leadership.8

His work, like Patrick’s, points to a Christian community whose elite wereeducated in Latin, the Christian Scriptures, grammar, and rhetoric.9

Archaeological evidence as well upholds the theory that Christiancommunities remained in some areas of sub-Roman Britain. Cemeteriesand inscribed stones help to document a Christian presence.10 Place-nameevidence and topography also can lend clues regarding the survival ofBritish communities in territories that would eventually come under Anglo-Saxon control in the seventh century.11

As discussed previously, the invention of penitentials most likelyoccurred within the British Church in the sixth century. The earliest peni-tential appears to have been written in the sixth century by Gildas or at leastit is attributed to him.12 Finnian, who wrote a penitential that Columbanuslater used in composing his own, may have resided in Ireland, but is con-sidered British by some scholars.13 Although only preserved in later manu-scripts, the Synod of North Britain and the Synod of the Grove of Victory maybe examples of British sixth-century penitential documents as well.14

However, the above evidence primarily applies to the western and north-ern parts of Britain. For Britons in the southeast, the situation was quitedifferent.15 This area saw the earliest Anglo-Saxon settlement and the rep-lacement of Romano-British culture with a Germanic overlay. Evidence forChristian survival in these areas rests primarily on place-name evidence andthe survival of martyr cults. Even within the Anglo-Saxon heartlands ofthe East where Anglo-Saxon settlement was the heaviest in the sixth century,a few place names retained the Eccles element, which seems to have beenderived from the Latin, ecclesia or “church.”16 These may demonstrate local,functioning British Christian communities for some time after the Anglo-Saxon domination of these areas.

There also are spotty reports of the continuation of martyr cults.17 Thecult of Alban, a possible third-century martyr, appears to have functioned

British Church to c.620 67

1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 67

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 andthe fact that it was no longer possible to access their shrines due to Anglo-Saxon occupation.19 The Libellus Responsionum, written by Pope Gregorythe Great to Augustine in c.601, mentions the existence of a cult center fora martyr named Sixtus, though the community had no details of hismartyrdom.20 It is unknown how many other cult centers or memorials mayhave continued to function for which there is no surviving documentation.

Therefore, it is important to envision differences in the continuation ofRomano-British Christianity. Scholars disagree with regard to how defuseand numerous the Christian community was in Britain c.400, but between400 and 600 the Church in areas outside Anglo-Saxon control not only con-tinued to function but provided missionaries for Ireland, founded religiouscommunities, offered an impressive education for some, and was influentialin the development of penitentials. It is also clear that the British Church wasnot isolated, but remained in contact with Merovingian Gaul.

In areas where the Anglo-Saxons first gained dominance, namely in thesoutheast, pastoral care was greatly impoverished.21 Isolated communitiespossibly focused on cult centers continued, but were cut off from Christiansfurther west.22 In these kingdoms, as the British population was comprisedof peasants or possibly slaves, they did not greatly influence the surroundingAnglo-Saxon society.

Sources for the Augustinian Mission

There are a small number of applicable primary sources that help historiansreconstruct the interaction between the British Church and the papalmission.23 A few surviving papal letters provide context, but the mainsource is the Ecclesiastical History written by Bede, a Northumbrian monk,in c.731. Obviously, Bede composed his History over a hundred years afterthe 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 endof his History, he provides a short autobiographical note and a list of theworks he had written to that date.24 Bede was born in the early 670s onlands controlled by the monastery of Wearmouth and at age seven was givento the care of Abbot Benedict Biscop (674–89). With the establishment of


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 68

Jarrow, Wearmouth’s sister foundation in 681, he transferred to thismonastery under the leadership of Abbot Ceolfrid (688–716). As an adult,he taught and wrote about the Scriptures and Church fathers, composingbiblical 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 theAnglo-Saxon Church, Bede’s History is a secondary text.25 He had to rely onthe sources available and construct a narrative that fit his didactic purposes.Bede mentions that Albinus, abbot of Sts. Peter and Paul, Canterburyprovided both written documents and oral testimony about the Gregorianmission and the conversion of Kent. In addition, Nothelm, future arch-bishop of Canterbury (735–39), delivered the documents from Albinus toJarrow 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 iswritten for a moral purpose.26 Due to this vision for his work, historians haverecognized that throughout the History, the reader is presented with modelsto imitate or to avoid: the good bishop, the bad bishop, the good king, thebad king, the good monk, the bad priest, and so on.27 Since Bede viewed itas 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/herlife, without the eventuality of divine punishment. This is not to imply thatall the information in the History should be viewed as false. However, Bedeconstructed his material to emphasize certain viewpoints.

In the Middle Ages, the historian’s job was to teach through example andto show God working through history.28 Where a modern historian mightlook 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 triumphof Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England, to encourage the Christians of hisday and to motivate the Church to reform.29

The complexities between the interaction of Bede’s agenda and hissource material can be seen in Bede’s presentation of the papal mission.His narrative emphasizes the role of the pope in sponsoring the mission, butis basically silent about the aid received from the Merovingian courts. It isonly by using other sources that it is possible to reconstruct the high levelof Frankish assistance.30 Bede may have decided not to focus on theMerovingians in order to highlight the relationship between the papacy andthe English Church, something that was important in Bede’s own time.


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 69

On the other hand, this silence could reflect the lack of information in hissources. For instance, when Nothelm traveled to Rome to obtain documentsfor Bede, he may have decided not to copy most of the letters from PopeGregory to the secular and ecclesiastical hierarchy in the Merovingian king-doms. It is impossible to know how much Bede was creating a story to fithis 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 hiswork The Reckoning of Time.31 This book examined all aspects of the calen-dar including how to calculate the date of Easter. While all those involvedin the Easter controversy would have comprehended the basic issues, Bedeunderstood the more complex calculations and arguments. As an expert inthe field, he did not tolerate those who refused to see the errors of theCeltic-84 and Victorian tables.

Besides his professional interest in the topic, Bede was also concernedabout the influence of the Easter controversy on Church unity. As withColumbanus and others before him, Bede well understood the harm thatdivision could bring to the Church and its mission if it divided into com-peting groups. One of the major themes of the History is the progresstoward unity in Easter calculation among the churches of the British Isles.By the time Bede finished the History in 731, all of the Insular Churchexcept parts of the British had adopted the Roman tonsure and Dionysiantable. Bede had only disdain for the British Church and its inability toadmit it was wrong in the face of the unified body of Christ. His frustrationcolored and influenced the narratives that discuss this tradition in hisHistory.

Augustine and the British Ecclesiastics according to Bede

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


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 70

Augustine then suggested that they could determine which tradition Godpreferred by trying to heal a sick man. The group that was successful wouldbe 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 thatAugustine must be right, but stated that they could not adopt new practiceswithout 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 theyshould do. The hermit replied that if Augustine was a true man of God andhumbly stood when they arrived, they should follow his advice. Next, thetwo sides again met. With the arrival of the British delegation, Augustineremained seated, thus proving his prideful nature. Angered at this, theBritish “strove to contradict everything he said.”34 Augustine eventuallymade three demands: that they abandon their alternative method for calcu-lating the date of Easter, that they “complete” the baptism ritual accordingto the Roman rite, and that they help to convert the Anglo-Saxons. TheBritish refused and also rejected Augustine’s claim that the papacy had givenhim authority over the British Church. Augustine therefore condemnedthem 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), attackedthe British. At the battle, Æthelfrith and his men killed 1,200 priests fromthe monastery of Bangor who had come to pray for a British victory. Bede’slinking of the meeting with Augustine and the later battle demonstrates tohis readers that, just as in the Old Testament, God still raised up pagankings 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 theBritish. Before discussing the arrival of Augustine, the History does notportray the British in an entirely negative light. Using Gildas’ On the Ruinof Britain, Bede presents the Anglo-Saxon invasion as a punishment fromGod for British sins.37 However, he also relates that when they repented andtrusted in God, they were able to defeat their enemies. Unfortunately, justas with the ancient Israelites, victory led to luxury and internal strife. TheBritish would once again turn away from God and in response they experi-enced plague and new defeats.38 Therefore, Bede paints the British in a cycleof sin, punishment, and repentance.

Bede also includes information from Life of St. Germanus to discuss thePelagian heresy in Britain.39 According to Bede, the British asked for helpfrom the Gallic Church who sent St. Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, in


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 71

c.429.40 Through preaching and teaching, he was able to turn the peopleback to the truth. Interestingly, Bede includes the story of the failure of thePelagians to heal a blind girl.41 St. Germanus, on the other hand, was suc-cessful thereby convincing all that he truly represented God. In the presenceof such a miracle, the people fully abandoned false teachings. Bede’s readerssurely would have seen the parallel to the Augustinian narrative.

Therefore, in the first part of the History, Bede’s presentation of theBritons is mixed. On the one hand, he portrays the invasion of Britain bythe Saxons as a punishment from God for a multitude of sins. On the other, heincludes stories of early martyrs, presents the British as defeating the Anglo-Saxons when they relied on God, humbly asking for assistance to combat thePelagian heresy, and wanting to remain true to the orthodox faith.

Once the British ecclesiastical leaders rejected Augustine’s call to unity inChurch practices and a joint mission to convert the Anglo-Saxons, Bede’sdepiction of this tradition is entirely negative. The British Church is onlymentioned in passing from this point in the History always with thereminder that it used heretical practices.42 For Bede, it was possible thatbefore the arrival of Augustine the British were unaware of their error.However, after meeting with Augustine and even, at least according to theHistory, admitting he was right, Bede had no sympathy for them. The setnarratives discussing the British response to Germanus healing a blind girland Augustine healing a blind man form an interesting indictment.43 Whilein the past the British had been able to see the errors of their ways, this wasno longer the case. Bede uses the British loss of territory and influence asexamples of what happens to a tradition that rejects the truth.

Summary

Therefore, while Bede’s History is an invaluable resource for the earlymedieval Church, it must be used carefully when analyzing Celtic–Romaninteractions. Bede finished his book in c.731, over a hundred and thirtyyears after the arrival of Augustine’s mission. This meant that he had to rely onsurviving documents and oral traditions. In many ways, for the early narra-tives, the History is more a secondary than primary source.

In addition, in the History, the meeting between Augustine and theBritish plays a crucial role in Bede’s construction of the British as a hereticalbranch of the Church. While in the past, they had repented, in this casethey rejected Augustine’s admonitions to adopt the Roman rite of baptismand the Victorian table. In addition, Bede believed that they refused toassist in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons. Since the British knowinglydiscarded the truth and rejected Christ’s command to spread the Gospel,


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 72

they were punished by God and marginalized within the History. Thus evenwith his limited sources, Bede may have omitted any positive informationhe had on this branch and minimized its role within Anglo-Saxon Englandin 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, allevidence points to the fact that he would have advocated the Victorian tablesince Rome did not adopt the Dionysian until sometime in the 630s.44 IfColumbanus’ comments condemning the Victorian table can be used asevidence for the general attitude in the Irish and British Churches, it is nottoo surprising that the British ecclesiastics were unwilling to adopt a tablethey saw as poorly calculated.

As can be seen in table 2.2, each table was listing dates that were contro-versial 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 theCeltic-84, the Victorian table advocated Easter dates as late as luna 24. Anadditional problem occurred in 604, when the Victorian table listedMarch 22 as the correct Easter, three days before the Celtic-84 equinox ofMarch 25. Therefore, both tables were listing “dark” Easters and symbolicallydenying 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 theAnglo-Saxons. Unity in Easter dating and fourteen weeks of the liturgicalcalendar would have been important to ensure that the newly establishedAnglo-Saxon Churches were not immersed in controversy. From the pointof view of those using the Celtic-84 table, adopting the Victorian table thathad listed two Easter dates in the past and would do so again was not a goodsolution to the problem. For Augustine and his supporters, abandoning thetable used at Rome for one followed by only a handful of regions was clearlyout of the question.

Baptism

One of the more perplexing aspects of Bede’s presentation of the confronta-tion between Augustine and the British bishops is the report that Augustine


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 73

wanted the British to “complete” the baptism rite according to Roman andapostolic practice.45 Unfortunately, Bede seems not to have known whatwas wrong with the British liturgy because he provides no details in theHistory. Since such information would have strengthened his case againstthe British, his silence is telling. Any analysis of Bede’s story is complicatedby the fact that there are no surviving descriptions of the British rite ofbaptism in this period.

Some historians point to the possibility that episcopal confirmation ofthe baptismal candidate may not have been included in the British versionof the ceremony.46 As far as can be reconstructed, in the rite used at Romethe initiate was anointed twice. The first could be performed by a priest, butthe second unction and laying on of hands through which the candidatereceived the Holy Spirit could only be administered by a bishop.47 If theBritish Church did not include the second anointing, Augustine might haveargued that those baptized within this tradition had not received the HolySpirit, leaving the ceremony incomplete.

All this is complicated by the fact that there are no other reportedinstances of conflict over the British rite. Certainly if it was missing a crucialelement such as the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, it can be assumed that addi-tional disputes would have arisen. This is especially true if the British andIrish used the same liturgy since the Irish were instrumental in the conversionof parts of Anglo-Saxon England.

One possible explanation for the absence of controversy is that theliturgy in question was used by only a small portion of the British Churchand then abandoned soon after the meeting with Augustine. The problemwith this theory is that, at least when it came to Easter, the Welsh were notin favor of the adoption of Roman practices. Therefore, it appears some-what out of character for them to have quickly adopted a new liturgy.

Another possibility is that there was nothing seriously wrong with theBritish rite and it was simply the circumstances of the Gregorian missionthat caused Augustine to demand that the British use the Roman liturgy.Augustine may have been concerned that it would confuse the newlyfounded Anglo-Saxon Christian communities to practice two differentforms of baptism. It is easy to imagine questions arising over whether theinitiate had received the Holy Spirit if some were anointed only once andothers underwent a second anointing with laying on of hands by a bishop.

In the Libellus Responsionum, Pope Gregory encouraged Augustine toadopt a combination of practices from Rome and Gaul that would fit thenew Anglo-Saxon Church.48 Historians have highlighted the fact thatGregory was very open to liturgical diversity. For instance, he approved ofthe Visigothic Church immersing the candidate once during baptism, eventhough in Rome it was done three times.49 However, it should be assumed


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 74

that neither the pope nor Augustine would have advocated a variation ofcentral practices, such as the rite of baptism, within the English Churchitself. The church at Canterbury could have a liturgy that differed from thatat Rome, but it should use a rite which was similar to all the other churchesfounded by the Roman missionaries. All evidence demonstrates thatCanterbury’s liturgy was profoundly influenced by the Roman one.50

The theory that there was nothing inherently wrong with the British riteis strengthened by the possibility that many areas of the Western Churchdid not include the episcopal anointing and laying on of hands in the bap-tismal liturgy.51 For instance, parts of the Merovingian Church may haveused a rite that omitted this. Reconstructions of the Gallican liturgy suggestthat the officiant, be he priest or bishop, anointed the candidate once whothus received the Holy Spirit. It was only after the Carolingian reforms of thelate eighth century, with the adoption of the Roman rite, that the bishopwas required to complete the ceremony.52 It has also been suggested that theoldest surviving Irish and Visigothic liturgies did not mandate episcopalparticipation.53

If these reconstructions are correct and if Augustine’s disapproval withthe British liturgy stemmed from the absence of any episcopal element in theceremony, it can be assumed that Augustine would have requested thatthe Frankish clergy participating in the mission as well as the British usethe Roman rite. If Bede’s report of the meetings between Augustine and theBritish is correct, he was willing to allow them some leeway in followingtheir own practices. However, diversity in Easter dating and the baptismceremony were not acceptable.

The major critique to this hypothesis is that it does not account for thelack of a similar debate elsewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Church. If the use of asingle baptismal liturgy was considered crucial in mission areas, the presenceof Irish, Gallic, Roman, and British ecclesiastics in the Anglo-Saxonkingdoms should have triggered additional discussion. For instance,Northumbria was converted by Roman and Irish missionaries, but the onlyrecorded disagreements centered on Easter dating and the tonsure.54 Inaddition, Anglo-Saxon sources from the mid-seventh to early eighth cen-turies which discuss baptism usually include the need for episcopal confir-mation.55 This somewhat undermines the idea that the Gallic and Irish ritesdid not have an episcopal element.

It is impossible to make many definitive statements about the Britishbaptismal liturgy because of the lack of evidence. However, the absence ofcontinuing conflict leads to the conclusion that the British rite of baptismcannot be viewed as a Celtic distinctive that differed in some significant wayfrom the liturgies in use on the Continent. There is not enough proof tostate that the Irish and British used the same ceremony or even that all of


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 75

the British churches were united in their practice. In addition, some historianswould argue that the possible reconstructions of the British liturgy are verysimilar to the Gallican and Irish rites, thereby including the British practicewithin a much wider tradition than simply the Celtic. However, evenwithout being able to identify the specific problem with the British liturgy,it is probable that the conflict between the British churchmen andAugustine was influenced to some extent by the specific circumstances ofthe Gregorian mission.

Conversion Issues

Along with using the Celtic-84 Easter table, Bede’s condemnation of theBritish Church came from his belief that they did nothing to bringChristianity to the pagan Anglo-Saxons. However, historians point to elu-sive evidence that the British may have been more involved than Bedebelieved. First, in the West Midlands, archaeology and topography suggestthat British Christian communities may have been responsible for convert-ing Anglo-Saxons in the kingdoms of Hwicce and Magonsæte (map 4.1).56

Certainly it appears that at least portions of these kingdoms were convertedin the sixth century, even before the arrival of the Gregorian mission inKent.57

Another interesting piece of evidence comes from the ninth-centuryHistoria Brittonum or the History of the Britons.58 This document, compiledc.830, states that the Northumbrian king Edwin (617–33) was baptized byRhun, son of Urien, usually identified as the king of Rheged, a northernBritish kingdom (map 4.1).59 This information is incorrect because it isknown that Paulinus, bishop of Northumbria, baptized Edwin.60 However,Rhun may have acted as Edwin’s baptism sponsor, in other words, his god-father. 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 linksbetween Rheged and Northumbria in this early period, even though thetradition has become distorted.61

While there is some evidence for the participation of the British Churchin the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons, it was limited for a number of rea-sons. First, by the late Roman Empire, being a civilized Roman meant beinga 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 lan-guage and history, set them apart from their invaders.63 It must also be


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 76

remembered that the Anglo-Saxons were the enemies of the Britons. That aswell may have influenced their decision not to convert the pagan tribes.

Even had the Britons attempted to convert the Anglo-Saxons rulersbefore the arrival of missionaries from Rome or Iona, it is easy to see whythey would have been unsuccessful in areas where the Anglo-Saxons weredominant. Anglo-Saxon kings respected religions that could provide suc-cess, especially military victories. Looking at the status of the Britons underAnglo-Saxon control, it does not appear that Christianity would be a veryattractive religion. It seems highly unlikely that the Anglo-Saxon kingswould have welcomed any religious overtures from the defeated Britonswho were peasants or slaves in their kingdoms.64 It may have been differentbetween those in the independent British kingdoms and their Anglo-Saxoncounterparts, but the legacy of conflict would have complicated this as well.

Ironically, just as the British may have found some level of cultural unityby emphasizing their Roman past, the Anglo-Saxons also sought to identifywith Rome. This association could be found through Christianity, but onlythe Christianity of successful rulers like those in Merovingian Gaul or theold Roman heartlands. The new Anglo-Saxon Church appears to havemade every effort to separate from its defeated neighbors and present itselfas securely tied into the heritage of Rome.65 Pope Gregory’s letter to KingÆthelberht praises him as a new Constantine.66 In the oldest of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, it would take outsiders, representing the memories ofimperial power, to persuade the Anglo-Saxon rulers to convert.67

Jurisdiction and Authority

Augustine wrote to Pope Gregory questioning Canterbury’s relationship tothe Frankish and British Churches. The pope replied that althoughAugustine had no authority in Gaul, the British bishops did fall under hisjurisdiction.68 Pope Gregory envisioned that the English Church would bedivided between two metropolitan bishops, one at London and the other atYork. Each of these bishops would have twelve bishops under their authority.Thus both of the metropolitan sees in the Church would be located inAnglo-Saxon areas. The British, therefore, were being asked to acknowledgeAugustine’s authority and help establish a Church whose administrativefocus would be in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

In addition, Bede remarks that Augustine was able to arrange the firstmeeting with the British clergy through the help of King Æthelberht ofKent, one of the most powerful Anglo-Saxon monarchs at that time. Hisprotection and support of Augustine would have certainly worried theBritish ecclesiastics.69 From their point of view, they were being asked to


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 77

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’sreligious authority would come with secular political ties to the people whohad been slowly conquering their land for over a hundred and fifty years.71

Bede’s explanation of why the British rejected Augustine rests partiallyon the story of the holy man and his advice to follow only a humbleleader.72 Because Augustine remained seated as the British arrived, theyknew that his demands could not truly reflect the will of God. This story ofauthority resting in the humble leader evidences possible parallels betweenColumbanus and the British churchmen.73 Columbanus believed that ifboth the supporters of the Victorian table and the Celtic-84 were to humblysubmit to God, they would be able to determine which tradition wascorrect.74 Thus it was the humble contemplative who would be able toclearly discern the truth. Since the British were faced with the decision ofwhether or not to acknowledge Augustine’s authority and to adopt a tablethey saw as celebrating a dark Easter, Augustine needed to prove his legiti-macy. The ability to heal a sick man was a good sign, but his pride meantthat 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 Augustinepreserved in Bede’s History.75 The pope cautions the bishop to be verymindful of the temptation of pride. Augustine had been given the power toperform miracles by God for the salvation of the Anglo-Saxons. Thereforehe should not boast in himself, but remember that all his accomplishmentswere due to God’s grace and support. The message of this letter fits withinGregory’s emphasis on the need for all Church leaders to be humble andavoid the sin of conceit.76

Purity Issues

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


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 78

birth.81 If Augustine raised these issues due to contact with British churchmenor those converted by the British, this would help shed light on other areas ofdisagreement between Augustine and the British ecclesiastics.82

While this theory has been supported by some historians, others point tothe Frankish influence on the Kentish Church as a better source for thesequestions.83 For instance, Stancliffe has argued that Caesarius of Arles useda literal interpretation of the Old Testament when he discussed many ofthese same issues in his sermons.84 Remembering that Æthelberht’s wife wasFrankish, that she had Frankish churchmen accompany her to Kent, andthat Augustine himself had Frankish priests assisting him, it seems just aslikely that these questions could have arisen in response to interaction withFranks 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 notuntil after he and his colleagues had arrived in Britain that they realized theBritish followed alternative practices. Somewhat later, they learned that theIrish did as well. Although not included in the verbatim portion of therecorded letter, Bede adds that Laurence believed that the British and Irishdiffered from the Church in many ways and that the Celtic-84 was a majorproblem. It was because of this that Laurence and his fellow bishops decidedto 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 wasunsuccessful in convincing them to abandon their alternative practices. With-out the actual text of the letter, it is impossible to assess Laurence’s argumentsor the issues that concerned him. The letter does, however, demonstratethat Canterbury was still attempting to exercise pastoral care over theBritish, even after Augustine’s condemnation.

Conclusion

In the early seventh century, controversy over Easter dating arose in bothBritain and on the Continent. Neither the British churchmen norColumbanus were willing to abandon the Celtic-84 due to the problems with


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 79

the Victorian table. Those following the Celtic-84 believed that the Victoriantable listed a “dark” Easter by placing the equinox too early and allowingEaster to fall late in the moon’s cycle. Both of these issues symbolically deniedthat Christ, the Light of the World, needed to die for humanity’s salvation.

Unlike Merovingian Gaul, the Anglo-Saxons were still primarily paganand the Anglo-Saxon Church was in its infancy. As such it could not afford tobe divided by disputes and doubts over varying practices. It is within thisframework that the differences between the Roman and British rites ofbaptism may have been critical. It is impossible to tell whether there wassomething theologically questionable about the British liturgy. That this issuedoes not arise again implies that either only a small group of the British usedthis rite and it was quickly abandoned or it was simply circumstances that cre-ated the controversy during this period. If the former, this cannot be definedas a practice of the Celtic tradition or micro-Christendom as a whole; if thelatter, it does not appear to have been a matter of significant dispute.

Contrary to Bede’s claims, the British Church may well have partici-pated in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons in some areas, especially thoseto the west and north. On the other hand, missions may have been limitedfor a number of reasons. First, Christianity may have been used as one ele-ment identifying the British in opposition to the Anglo-Saxons. ExaminingGildas’ writings, the British regarded themselves as a chosen people fightingagainst God’s enemies. Second, in the oldest areas of Anglo-Saxon settle-ment, the kings and their courts would not be open to a God presented bythose they had defeated.

It is also important to keep in mind the reasons that the British ecclesi-astics would not acknowledge Augustine’s authority. First, Augustine advo-cated an Easter table the British saw as incorrect and harmful to theChurch. Second, the British feared political and ecclesiastical Anglo-Saxoncontrol; Canterbury’s leadership came with too many strings attached.Third, if Bede’s information is correct, the British were concerned thatAugustine’s pride might harm his ability to correctly lead the Church. Forthe British, his support of an Easter table that listed dark Easters might havebeen the best evidence of this.

Laurence’s letter demonstrates that Canterbury’s overtures to the Britishcontinued even after Augustine’s death. Bede only mentions Easter, but theunspecified alternative practices might have included baptism as well. SinceCanterbury would still have been advocating the Victorian table at thispoint, it is not too surprising that the British once again refused to abandonthe Celtic table.


1403972990ts05.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 80

Chapter 5

The Irish Church to 640

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

Laurence’s Letter to Ireland

The earliest primary document concerned with the Easter controversy inIreland is a letter from Laurence (604/610–19), bishop of Canterbury,Mellitus (604–19), bishop of London, and Justus (604–24), bishop ofRochester to the bishops and abbots in Ireland.1 Laurence and his fellowbishops were part of the mission sent to Anglo-Saxon England by PopeGregory. Unfortunately when Bede decided to include this document in hisHistory, he quoted only the first part of the letter and did not includeCanterbury’s argument against the Celtic-84.

Laurence states that before he left Rome, he and the others held theBritish and Irish in high regard. However, once they arrived in England,they discovered that the British did not follow the customs of the universalChurch. Laurence continues that only later did they learn from BishopDagán and Columbanus that the Irish also used divergent practices.

1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 81

Furthermore, when Dagán visited them, he refused to eat in the same housewith the Anglo-Saxon bishops.2

The fact that Dagán refused to even eat in the same room with his coun-terparts implies that he may have believed that Laurence and his associateswere heretics. Church legislation forbid contact between the orthodox andthose holding heretical opinions.3 If this is why Dagán refused the hospital-ity of the Anglo-Saxon bishops, it demonstrates that by the early seventhcentury at least some of the Irish considered use of the Victorian table aheretical issue. However, it must be emphasized that there is no way toknow exactly why Dagán refused to eat with the other bishops.

Lawrence and his companions may have crossed paths withColumbanus while traveling back and forth between Rome and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. For instance in 601, Gregory sent letters to a number ofMerovingian bishops and King Theuderic and Brunhild asking them toprovide Laurence and his party with any needed assistance.4 This demon-strates that Laurence would have been in Gaul at a time when Columbanusand 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 themeeting with Augustine and the British bishops in c.600, Canterburyremained involved in the controversy over the alternative Celtic practices.Bede states that though the Irish varied from the universal Church in manyways, Laurence emphasized Easter dating. Bede makes no mention of bap-tism or the tonsure and provides no information on why Canterbury choseto write to the Irish or who specifically received the letter. These areimportant omissions that complicate understanding the full ramificationsof the letter. However, Dagán’s behavior, as reported by Laurence, maydemonstrate that Columbanus was not the only Irish ecclesiastic whodisagreed with the use of the Victorian table, underscoring the importanceof correct Easter dating to the Irish Church.

Computus of Bangor

Another document usually associated with the Easter controversy in Irelandis a fragment of text bound into an eighth-century copy of the Gospel ofMatthew. 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 certainlearned 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


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 82

Dionysian table making Bangor the first of the Irish churches to adopt thisEaster calculation.6 However, Columbanus was also from this samemonastery and he clearly supported the Celtic-84. As well, there is noevidence of Bangor using the Dionysian table until much later.

It has recently been argued that this fragment does not refer to a spe-cific Easter table, but a more general method of calculation.7 Comparingthe whole passage to information contained in Bede’s The Reckoning ofTime suggests that this fragment describes a method of finger calculationusing 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 reportthat Bangor accepted the Dionysian table before the rest of Ireland,rather it suggests that this community used one of a number of finger cal-culation methods.

Pope Honorius’ Letter to the Irish Church

The only mention of this letter is found in Bede’s History.9 When discussingpapal letters, Bede usually quotes at least a portion of the text, but withHonorius’, he simply summarized the arguments. He may have done this tokeep the reader ignorant of the pope’s support of the Victorian table. By thetime that Bede was writing in c.731, the papacy had long since switched tothe Dionysian. Just as Jonas had to mask the fact that Columbanus had sup-ported the Celtic-84 in his Life of Columbanus, Bede would not havewanted to include a letter from the papacy advocating an Easter tableconsidered incorrect by his eighth-century audience.

In addition, in the Greater Chronicle, composed about six years beforethe History, Bede states that “. . . Pope Honorius condemned in a letter theQuartodeciman error concerning the observance of Easter, which hadappeared amongst the Irish.”10 The Quartodecimans were those whobelieved that Easter should always be celebrated on Passover (luna 14) nomatter the day of the week. This practice had been condemned at theCouncil of Nicaea in 325. In the History, Bede was always at pains toexplain that the Irish were not technically Quartodecimans because theyonly celebrated on luna 14 if it was a Sunday. It is thus very interesting thatBede decided to just paraphrase Honorius’ letter and did not include thisaccusation in the History. It should also be emphasized that as far as the sur-viving sources demonstrate, this papal letter was the first time Rome linkedthe Celtic-84 and heretical practices.

The Irish Church to 640 83

1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 83

According to Bede, Honorius advised the Irish that they were observingEaster at the wrong time. He then warned against the sin of pride. The Irishshould not assume that they were “wiser than the ancient and modernChurches of Christ scattered throughout the earth.”11 Instead they shouldadopt a Paschal table sanctioned by the rest of the Church.

Bede did not include a date for Honorius’ letter, but interaction betweenRome and Bobbio may provide the context for its composition.12 TheColumbanian tradition abandoned the Celtic-84 in 627, making 628 thefirst year Luxeuil, Bobbio, and their associated monasteries celebratedEaster using the Victorian table. Also in that year, representatives fromBobbio were at the papal court to receive a papal privilege releasing themfrom local episcopal control. It is possible that this is when Honoriuslearned that the Irish Church used the Celtic-84. He may have reasonedthat since the Columbanian houses had adopted the Victorian table, theIrish churchmen might be open to change as well. The pope also wrote aseries of letters in the late 620s to the royal court in the Anglo-Saxon king-dom of Northumbria.13 This proves that Honorius was aware and interestedin what was happening in the British Isles. Therefore, it seems likely that hisletter 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 tableby 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 late620s and the decision by some of the churches in southern Ireland to adoptthe Victorian table. He also provides arguments on why the Celtic-84should be abandoned.

Dating

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


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 84

Victorian table by the Columbanian tradition in c.627 likely caused debatein Ireland as well. In addition, the Celtic-84 and Victorian tables were inagreement in 629. This would have eased the transition to the new table.Thus, the evidence leads to the conclusion that some of the Irish Churchesused the Victorian table in 629. This would mean that Cummian’s lettershould be dated to approximately c.632.

Other clues help to confirm this date. Cummian states that he did notaccept 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 synodat Mag Léne to discuss the fact that they followed a table different from thatused at Rome (630). All agreed that they should bow to the wisdom of theApostolic See and adopt the Victorian table. However, “a short time afterthis” some began to question this decision and representatives were sent toRome to ensure that the Victorian table was truly used (631). While theywere in Rome, the Easter dates listed in the Victorian and Celtic-84 differedby almost a month. “In the third year” the representatives returned andsome of the southern Irish upheld their decision to follow the VictorianEaster. The Celtic-84 and Victorian dates for Easter were one month apartin 631 so this fits with Cummian’s narrative (table 3.1). As the two tablesagreed in 632 there would have been extra time to ensure all the communi-ties had copies of the new table.15

Cummian relates in his letter that Ségéne (623–52), abbot of Iona, wasaccusing those who used the Victorian table of heresy.16 In 632, Cummianresponded to these accusations by composing a letter to Ségéne and the her-mit Béccán. In this, he demonstrates the errors of the Celtic-84 and arguesthat this table is the one with heretical overtones. He encourages Ségéne toadopt the Victorian table in order to celebrate Easter at the same time as therest of the Church.

Arguments in the Letter

Cummian writes that he consulted Scripture, the Church fathers, synodicalrulings, and ten different Easter tables during a year of studying thecontroversy.17 He begins his arguments by quoting Old Testament versesabout Passover emphasizing that luna 14 is a day of sacrifice. If Christ is thePassover lamb then his death, not his resurrection should be associated withthis day. He then includes passages from Jerome, Ambrosiaster, and Origenall of which affirm that Passover should be celebrated on luna 14 and theFeast of Unleavened Bread from luna 15 to 21.18 From the Book of Questionshe adds the information that Easter cannot fall on luna 14 or 15 because ifChrist died on luna 14, then his resurrection did not occur until luna 16.19


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 85

Cummian incorrectly thought that Jerome wrote the Book of Questions andIrish 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 ofJerome.

Cummian next turns to the New Testament and uses the Gospels todemonstrate that Passover and Christ’s death occurred on luna 14, that helay in the tomb on luna 15, and that he was resurrected on luna 16.Cummian claims the entire Church, including that in the East, assignedluna 14–20 to the Passion, luna 15–21 to the Sepulchre, and luna 16–22 tothe Resurrection. By allowing Easter to fall on luna 14 the Celtic-84 impliesthat Christ’s death happened on luna 12. This is before Passover and deniesnot only the historical accuracy of the New Testament but the idea thatChrist came to fulfill the Law and establish the new covenant.22

Cummian also included information from Church councils. He quotesfrom the Council of Antioch (341) where it was decreed that those whodisobeyed the rulings of the Apostolic Sees—namely Rome, Jerusalem,Antioch, and Alexandria—should be excommunicated.23 He refers to theCouncil of Nicaea and the Synod of Arles, both of which confirmed that allchurches must celebrate Easter on the same day.24 Therefore, the supportersof the Celtic-84 need to be leery lest they fall outside the faith of the uni-versal Church. He adds that those who used the Celtic-84 in the past didnot know they were in error. The same cannot be said for Ségéne and otherslike him who refuse to adopt the Victorian table.25

As with Columbanus, Cummian reinforces the issue of Church unity byincluding passages from Augustine, Jerome, Cyprian, and Gregory theGreat on this subject.26 To deviate from the Easter table endorsed by the restof the Church is heretical and places one outside of the body of Christ. Heprotests Ségéne’s heresy accusation adding that he supports the heir of Peter.Cummian quotes Leviticus 20:9, “He who curses his father or mother shallbe put to death” and then adds “what, then, more evil can be thought aboutMother Church than if we say Rome errs, Jerusalem errs, Alexandria errs,Antioch errs, the whole world errs; the Irish and British alone know whatis right.”27

In another section of his letter, Cummian analyzes ten Easter tables.28 Adetailed analysis of each table is unnecessary for this study, but two impor-tant points need to be addressed. First, Cummian claims that Anatoliusnever supported an 84-year Easter table. One of Columbanus’ main argu-ments in favor of luna 14–20 was his belief that it had been sanctioned byAnatolius, whom Jerome held in high regard.29 It can be assumed thatSégéne used a similar argument since Cummian states that the abbot praisedAnatolius.30 Both Cummian and Columbanus are partially right. Anatolius


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 86

did sanction lunar limits of 14–20 and argued that the Easter full mooncould not fall before the equinox; something the Victorian table allowed.On the other hand, he also believed that his calculations could fit within anineteen-year cycle.31 Therefore, neither the Celtic-84 nor the Victoriantable aligned with the criteria Anatolius established for Easter dating.

Another interesting point about this list is that Cummian mentions theDionysian, Victorian, and Nicene tables. Cummian believed he was usingthe Nicene, however this council never advocated a specific table. He tellsSégéne that Nicaea should be obeyed, but the specifics he provides areclearly from the Victorian table.32 It is possible that his “Nicene” tablelisted the Victorian dates, but was accompanied by some of the documen-tation that normally circulated with the Dionysian leading Cummian toconclude that there were three tables: the Victorian, Dionysian, and somecombination of the two that he thought was the Nicene. The Victorianand Dionysian were in agreement during the 620s and 630s so it isunderstandable that some kind of merger of the Dionysian materials withthe Victorian could have occurred. However, historians have no solidexplanation for why Cummian believed he followed the Nicene table, or theexact materials he was referencing. What can be said with certainty is thatCummian advocated a nineteen-year cycle with a lunar range of 16–20, inother words, the Victorian table.

Summary

Cummian’s letter is crucial evidence of the Easter controversy in Ireland. Itshows that regional synods were held, scholars were studying differentEaster tables, and Rome was being consulted when a unanimous decisioncould not be reached. While Columbanus’ letters outlined the majorcomplaints against Victorious’ table by the Celtic-84 supporters,Cummian provides the opposite perspective. Like Columbanus, he pro-vides support from Scriptures, the Church fathers, and synodical decrees todemonstrate why his table is correct.

Cummian believed the supporters of the Celtic-84 were hereticalbecause they celebrated Easter on the date of Christ’s death, luna 14, ratherthan the Resurrection, luna 16. By celebrating the Resurrection on luna 14,they placed the Passion on luna 12 before Passover. This denied Christ’sidentification as the Passover lamb who died for the sins of the world andcasts into doubt his claim that he came not to overthrow the Law but tofulfill it. Cummian’s argument allows for luna 14 to remain important as itis the day of Christ’s passion. But Easter, the celebration of Christ’sresurrection, should only occur between luna 16 and 22.


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 87

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

Synod of Mag nAilbe

Another document that may apply to the Easter controversy of this periodis the Life of Fintán, probably composed in c.800.33 This text states thatFintán attended a synod at Mag nAilbe where the Easter tables weredebated.34 As Fintán was abbot of Taghmon in Co. Wexford until his deathin c.636, the synod must have occurred no later than this. Some historiansalso have suggested that Fintán may have attended the earlier synod at MagLéne because his monastery was located in the same general location and hisLife attests that he had ties to the monastery at Iona.35 All this fits well withCummian’s evidence of an increasing debate over the correct Easter table inthe 630s.

The Life states that at the Synod of Mag nAilbe, Fintán argued againstthe “new order which had recently come from Rome.”36 His statement maybe alluding to the papal letter by Honorius or simply the adoption of theVictorian table by some of the Irish Church. Cummian’s letter attests to thefact that part of the justification for using the Victorian table was that it wasfollowed in Rome.

Unfortunately for historians, the narrative about the Synod at MagnAilbe was included in the Life not to discuss the merits of the Celtic-84table, but as a set piece to show how other Church leaders honored Fintán.The Life records that Fintán offered Laisrén, abbot of Leighlin and sup-porter of the Victorian table, a choice of three tests to determine God’sjudgment regarding the correct tradition.37 First, they could throw a copy ofthe Celtic Easter table and a copy of the Roman one into the fire and seewhich one did not burn. Second, they could each choose one monk, placethe two in a house and set it on fire. Whichever monk survived would deter-mine the table God wanted them to use. The last option was to raise a holymonk from the dead and see which table he supported. In the Life, Laisrénresponds that Fintán was so loved by God that his prayers would be imme-diately answered, clearly implying that the saint would prevail in each chal-lenge. Having said this, the synod dismissed. Therefore no specific


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 88

arguments for or against the Victorian table are included. In fact, the actualdecision of the synod is unclear from the narrative. The author of the Lifewas attempting to prove that Fintán was a saint and that his opinion waswell respected. He was not constructing this narrative to provide convinc-ing arguments for the Celtic-84.

Since this is the only record of the synod, it is difficult to determinewhen it occurred. It would make sense to place it just after the eventsCummian relates in his letter. The Synod of Mag Léne was not an Ireland-wide council, but rather a regional one. As those associated with this firstsynod began to adopt the Victorian table, it may have triggered otherregional synods. It is not impossible that Laisrén was asked to attendMag nAilbe to clarify what arguments had convinced those at Mag Léne tosanction the Victorian table. Keeping this in mind, it seems logical that thesynod at Mag nAilbe occurred in 633 or 634. Also in 635 the Easter tableswould 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 discussthe Easter problem. In his History, Bede included two excerpts of a letterfrom Pope John to the Irish Church.38 Although Bede did not include adate, this letter can be firmly dated to 640, because John refers to himself aspope-elect and therefore must have written his letter between August andDecember 640.

John states that his predecessor, Severinus, had received “writings”brought by Irish envoys regarding the dispute over Easter. His letter isspecifically addressed to a number of churchmen who have been tentativelyidentified as Tómíne, bishop of Armagh; Columban, bishop of Clonard;Crónán, bishop of Nendrum; Díma, bishop of Connor; Baetán, bishop ofBangor; Crónán, abbot of Moville; Ernene, abbot of Tory Island; Laisrén,abbot of Leighlin; Sillán, bishop of Devenish; Ségéne, abbot of Iona andSaran who may have been a scholar.39 Excluding Leighlin, Clonard, andIona, all of these communities are located in the north of Ireland (seemap 5.1). The fact that Cummian addressed his letter to Ségéne shows thatthe 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 theVictorian table, this southern abbot may have been at the council to presentarguments against the Celtic-84.40

There are a few possible reasons that a synod might have been called todiscuss Easter dating in the late 630s. First, the combination of both the


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 89

Columbanian communities and some of the Irish Churches adopting theVictorian table would have raised the level of controversy within Ireland. Inaddition, the tables were listing dates that were particularly controversialbetween 636 and 640 (table 3.1). The Celtic-84 dates were often beforeluna 14 from the Victorian point of view. For those looking at their Celtictables, 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 tofour weeks apart in 636 and 639.


Armagh

Kells

Tara

Durrow

Emly

Cork

Bangor

KildareClonfertmulloe

Clonmacnois

Birr

Leighlin

Connor

Devenish

ClonfertClonard

NendrumMoville

ToryIsland

Taghmon

Map 5.1 Ireland

1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 90

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 Romeimplies that there must have been supporters of both tables at the meetingand that a decision could not be reached. There may also have been someconfusion about which Victorian date to use. A date of c.639 could workfor this council since in 641 the Celtic-84 and the “Greek” date on theVictorian table would agree. As mentioned, churches tended to switch thetables just before they were in agreement in order to ease the transitionand minimize confusion.

Content of the Letter from Pope John

Unfortunately, Bede has included only two portions of John’s letter. In thefirst, John says that he read the documents brought by the Irish delegationand found that parts of the Irish Church “were attempting to revive a newheresy 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 and21. Thus this is evidence that the papacy had switched to the Dionysiantable. While the Victorian and Dionysian tables had been in agreement forthe past few decades, in 641 and 645 the Victorian table would once againlist two dates.42 It is not surprising that the papacy would have switched tothe 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 newheresy out of an old one” is a condemnation of the Celtic-84 and its14–20 lunar range. As mentioned, the Church had condemned theQuartodecimans who celebrated Easter only on luna 14 regardless ofthe day of the week. By allowing Easter to occasionally occur on luna 14, theCeltic-84 created a new variation of this heresy. Thus John is simply refin-ing Honorius’ accusation that the Irish were Quartodecimans.

It has also been suggested that John may have been accusing theVictorian table of adhering to the same heresy.43 When Victorius listedApril 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 alreadyadopted the Victorian table in 640 and wrote to inform Rome that theyplanned 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’sletter was Ségéne. Since Iona did not abandon the Celtic-84 until c.716, itseems more likely the Irish ecclesiastics had written about both theVictorian and Celtic-84 tables. Since the papacy had just recently abandoned


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 91

the Victorian table, they would have known that its lunar range was16–22 and occasionally 15–21. The listing of April 1 as the correct Easterwas simply a miscalculation, not the creation of a new heresy out of an oldone. In addition, the Victorian table is not linked with the Quartodecimanheresy in any other document.

It is interesting that the pope would refer to this as a new heresy, sincethe Celtic-84 had been used for generations. Both Cummian and Bedeargued that before c.630, the Irish could not be blamed for following thewrong table as they were unaware of their error. Once alerted to the factthat 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 thepapal letter from Honorius. In this case, the “new heresy” would be only adecade old.

Pelagianism and Easter

The second passage of John’s letter is focused on Pelagianism. According tothe pope, the Pelagian heresy had seen a recent resurgence in Ireland.44 Hereminds the Irish that to deny Christ’s grace, as Pelagius did, and to arguethat man can be saved by his own works is to reject the teachings of the uni-versal Church and the witness of Scripture.

Clearly, Pope John was linking the Pelagian heresy with the Eastercontroversy.45 Writings by Bede and Ceolfrid of Jarrow demonstrate thatthe Victorian table was associated with Pelagianism because it allowedthe full Paschal moon or luna 14 to fall before the equinox.46 This is aproblem because the full moon after the equinox signals that the newyear has begun. To celebrate Easter in the last month of the year ratherthan the first would be to symbolically deny the need for Christ’s deathand resurrection. For those who followed the Dionysian table, theVictorian table was flawed because it allowed Easter to be celebrated inthe wrong month.

The Celtic-84 also had problems on this issue. In this table, Eastercould fall no earlier than March 26, but luna 14 could occur as early asMarch 21, on the true equinox, but before the one recognized as correct bythe table itself. More importantly, by the late 630s, the Celtic-84 wasfrequently listing Easter dates that the Dionysian table identified asluna 12, 13, and 14—all dates that belonged to the darkness andsymbolically 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 theCeltic-84 as well.47


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 92

Summary

The letter from Pope John to the Irish churchmen is evidence of the con-tinuing Easter controversy in Ireland. Unable to reach a decision on whichtable to follow, the northern ecclesiastics sent envoys to the papacy for a rul-ing. Probably to the shock of those attending the synod, John supportedneither the Celtic-84 nor the Victorian table but rather the Dionysian. Johncondemned the Celtic-84 for creating a new heresy out ofQuartodecimanism. On the other hand, he dismissed the Victorian andpossibly the Celtic table for reviving Pelagian concepts that undermined theneed for Christ’s grace.

Conclusion

Irish evidence points to the fact that the Easter controversy was in full swingwithin 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 Quartodecimanheretics 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. TheIrish envoys spent Easter 631 in Rome and Cummian’s letter followed soonafter. In c.634, it is possible that the Synod of Mag nAilbe as mentioned inthe Life of Fintán occurred. In 639, some northern Irish met in synod andrequested a ruling from Rome on the correct table. Soon after this, PopeJohn responded with his advocacy of the Dionysian table.

The story of the Easter controversy to 640 in the Irish Church demon-strates that by the late 620s deviation in Easter dating had become a hereti-cal issue. Ségéne, Cummian, and Popes Honorius and John IV all includedheresy accusations in their letters. Churchmen on all sides would not acceptthe use of two tables because matters of orthodoxy and unity were at stake.While there could be diversity within monastic rules and aspects of theliturgy, to celebrate two different Easters, to diverge on up to eighteen weeksof Church feasts and fasts, would rip apart the Church.

The various documents analyzed in this chapter also illustrate the factthat Church leaders often decided to solve the Easter dispute just before thetables 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. TheColumbanian houses probably switched to the Victorian table in 627 andthe tables agreed in 628 and 629. The Synod of Mag Léne met in c.630while the tables listed identical Easters in 632. The Synod of Mag nAilbemay have occurred in 634 allowing for the change in 635. Finally, some of


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 93

the leaders of the northern Irish Churches gathered in c.639 probably duein part because the Victorian table listed two dates in 641. However, it isalso true that one of those dates concurred with the Celtic-84 as well.

Another important aspect is the way in which the Church attempted tosolve the dispute over Easter. Unlike the individual Merovingian andAnglo-Saxon kingdoms, there was no overarching secular leader who couldcall a church council and enforce its decrees.48 Clearly in Ireland, provincialchurch councils were called to discuss each table’s merits and reach a unan-imous decision. When this was not possible, delegations were sent to Rometo consult with the papacy. Thus the Irish Church recognized the papacy’srole as court of appeals. While some continued to follow the Celtic-84 evenafter the letters from Popes Honorius and John, this should not be inter-preted as a sign that the “Celtic Church” did not recognize Rome’s author-ity. Like the rest of the Church of its day, it was possible to both disagreewith Rome and honor its role as an Apostolic See.


1403972990ts06.qxd 15/7/06 1:05 PM Page 94

Chapter 6

The Irish Church after 640

After 640, there are no documents originating from the Irish Church thatfocus directly on the Easter controversy. However, there are clear indicationsthat this continued to be a major issue. In addition, a proper understandingof this period is important because it shatters the traditionally held beliefsabout the Celtic Church. Much older scholarly and current popular litera-ture argues that by the mid-seventh century, Ireland had transferred from aChurch administered by bishops to one dominated by important abbots.1

This shift remains one of the main pillars in the argument that the monasticCeltic 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 didnot control the Irish Church. There were very important abbots, but therewere powerful bishops as well.

Sources

Collectio Canonum Hibernensis

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

1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 95

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. Theprobability of this date is strengthened by the fact that the latest sources inthe Hibernensis are from Theodore (d. 690), archbishop of Canterbury andAdomnán (d. 705), abbot of Iona.5 The Hibernensis is important in that itallows the historian a glimpse into the biblical, patristic, and synodicalsources available in the early-eighth-century Irish Church. It also identifiessome information as coming from either “Irish” or “Roman” synods, implyinga split in the Irish Church. Therefore, this document is a key source in thecontinuing Easter controversy during this period.

Material Associated with Patrick and Brigit

A number of documents survive concerning Patrick, Brigit, and theirassociated foundations, Armagh and Kildare, respectively. Late seventh-century 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 docu-ments include Armagh’s arguments for why Patrick, and by extension hissuccessors, should have authority over the churches of Ireland. There arealso records of the First and Second Synods of St. Patrick that purportedlywere held during Patrick’s lifetime, but more likely reflect decisions of thesixth and seventh centuries.7 In addition, the eighth-century Old IrishRíagail Phátraic or Rule of Patrick contains a very interesting description ofthe responsibilities of a bishop in the Irish Church.8

From the circle of St. Brigit of Kildare, two saint’s Lives survive. There istremendous disagreement about the date of the so-called First Life ofSt. Brigit.9 The second Life, written by Cogitosus, is more firmly dated tothe 670s or 680s.10 Cogitosus used the Life to support his claim that Kildareshould 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 inIreland. The traditional theories argued that the Irish Church was radicallydifferent from the rest of Europe in part because Ireland had never been a partof the Roman Empire and thus did not have cities. While episcopal sees wereusually located in urban centers, this was impossible in Ireland. Therefore, theIrish Church focused on rural monasteries rather than urban bishops.


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 96

The theory runs that although Patrick and his immediate successorsestablished a Church headed by bishops, the system failed by the late sixthor seventh century. In its place was an organization where abbots dominatedthe Church and monastic paruchiae, or groups of associated monasteries,reigned supreme.11 This development occurred because the bishops werelimited to a specific geographic territory while the abbots were free to founddaughter houses throughout Ireland establishing control and influence overmuch larger areas than any one bishop ruled.12

Thus, the theory continued, in the seventh century, it was the abbots ofthe major monastic networks who held the power and authority in the IrishChurch. Bishops still existed because of their specific pastoral duties, butthey were under the jurisdiction of abbots. No longer associated with a specificgeographical 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 attemptedto regain power by advocating Roman authority and traditions. Since the“Roman Church” was episcopally based, this was the model they wanted tobring back into Ireland.

The Easter controversy was a part of this movement. It was not thatthese bishops saw differing Easter dates as a problem in and of itself. Rather,this was one step in imposing Roman practices on the monastic “CelticChurch.”13 If they could convince their colleagues to acknowledge theauthority of the papacy in Easter dating, then they might be able to returnthe Irish Church to an episcopal structure. Unfortunately for the bishops,while Ireland did eventually adopt the Dionysian table, the abbots wereunwilling to give up their power and the unique organization of the IrishChurch remained until the twelfth-century Norman reform.

Some Terminology Confusion

This older theory of Irish Church organization rested in part on somespecific definitions of terms found in the Irish sources. Over the past fewdecades, historians have been redefining what these words mean and thishas led to new ideas. For instance, in the past, princeps was usually inter-preted to mean “abbot.” However, in the Hibernensis, princeps is used todescribe someone who is the head of a church.14 In this document, a princepscould 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 andeighth century, including saints’ Lives and biblical exegesis.16 Therefore,

The Irish Church after 640 97

1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 97

historians are careful to examine the context in which princeps is used inorder 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 amonastery’s lands. It also is used more generally for anyone who owed duesor tithes to a particular church, monastic or not.17 The term abbas or abbotis 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 supervisorsor overseers. Thus, “a small church might have only a very few monastictenants and no monks proper; its head or princeps might be an ordinarypriest; yet in relation to the monastic tenants he would apparently be anabbot.”18 Therefore, the terms princeps, monachus, or even abbas arefrequently used in nonmonastic contexts.

Paruchia is another word that has caused confusion. Traditionally thishas been defined as a monastic federation with a head church, its daughterhouses, and subservient communities. Scholars argued that as abbotsbecame the dominant force in the Irish Church, important monasteriesestablished these networks of churches thereby controlling extensive territorythroughout Ireland. As these monastic paruchiae grew, bishops weremarginalized and episcopal paruchiae or territories ruled by a bishop, disap-peared.19 In this model, any mention of bishops heading churches inseventh- or eighth-century documents was regarded as anachronistic.

Today, scholars realize that there is no reason to dismiss the primaryevidence of the continuation of episcopal paruchiae.20 In fact, seventh- andeighth-century documents like the Second Synod of St. Patrick and theHibernensis usually associate paruchiae with units of episcopal jurisdic-tion.21 Only once in the Hibernensis is a paruchiae mentioned in connectionwith an abbas. However, remembering that in Irish texts abbas can refersimply to a church administrator, such usage does not necessarily imply amonastic overtone to this canon. Therefore, as far as can be determined,throughout the early medieval Irish Church, a paruchia was an area of eccle-siastical jurisdiction that usually was administered by a bishop, but occa-sionally 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 federa-tion. Instead it seems more likely that familia refers both to the members ofan individual community, monastic or not, and in a wider sense to a seriesof churches that were associated with a particular saint. A familia “. . . wasfrequently identified by the presiding saint’s name, although the name ofthe leading church to which the familia as a whole owed allegiance mightalso serve the purpose.”23 A familia has no specific monastic connotations


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 98

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

Church Organization and the Role of Bishops

As on the Continent, the bishops and abbots who led the Irish Church werenormally from important aristocratic families and thus tied to the powerinherent in these relationships. The churches, especially the more powerful,had close connections with the local kings and often were controlled by a localkin group.24 This is in contrast to some of the popular literature where theIrish leadership is portrayed as untouched by worldly wealth and ambition.

Bishops always remained important and powerful throughout the sixthto eighth centuries. According to the canons, a bishop’s rank was equal tothat of a king.25 In the Old Irish legal material, the highest penalties wereassessed for injuries to bishops and the heads of the major churches.26

Bishops had important pastoral duties in the Church. They were responsi-ble for ordinations, baptisms, and confirmation. They consecrated churchesand acted as confessors for secular lords. Often they oversaw the physicalupkeep of church buildings and the community’s interactions with the poorand needy. Bishops also acted as judges in ecclesiastical cases.27 Thus whileabbots and nonclerical leaders were often very powerful in the Church, theydid 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 asingle túath or minor kingdom, the bishop of a lesser province, and thebishop of a greater province.28 In the Hibernensis, there are two differentmodels for solving church disputes.29 The first argues that when a case can-not 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 transferredto Rome. In the alternative scheme, disputes pass from the lesser diocese toa lesser province and then to a greater province and possibly a synod, beforebeing sent to Rome.

There may have been some controversy then over what would be thehighest level of authority within Ireland itself: bishops of lesser or greaterprovinces. This may have been a development that paralleled secular politicsas kingdoms jockeyed for power and influence in Ireland. Neither kings oflesser provinces nor their bishops probably appreciated the more powerful


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 99

kings and bishops attempting to establish authority over them. In addition,starting in the 670s, Armagh and Kildare began to argue for archiepiscopalauthority. This would have created an additional level of episcopal controlhad they been successful. It is also important to point out that similar typesof struggles for jurisdiction and authority occurred in Merovingian Gauland Anglo-Saxon England in the same period.30

The fact that in the eighth century, the compilers of the Hibernensis feltthe need to include these two canons, and a number of others that discussepiscopal rights and responsibilities, also is proof of continuing episcopalinfluence in the Irish Church. If only abbots held the highest level ofauthority in Ireland, why include canons that specifically undermined theirpower? Just as elsewhere in Europe, the bishops retained their judicial powerin the Church.

Some of the seventh-century synods also provide historic evidence thatbishops remained politically important in the Irish Church. At the synodthat precipitated the 640 papal letter there were bishops. In 697, Adomnán,abbot of Iona, called secular and ecclesiastical leaders together to promulgatethe Law of Innocents. At least seven, and possibly as many as thirteen, bishopssigned in support of this law protecting the innocent from violent attack.31

The fact that these men were from different geographical regions demon-strates that bishops continued to hold authority in provinces throughoutthe island.

Some Unusual Irish Characteristics

All this is not to argue that the organization of the Irish Church was identicalto the Continental one. It did have some unusual, if not unique, features.First of all, churches were not always controlled by clerics, but by abbotsand even those who were not in church orders. Day-to-day control of themonetary resources of a church could be outside the hands of a priest orbishop.32

In the hierarchies of Irish society, the head of a great church was equal tothe bishop of a túath or a king. However, while a bishop’s rank rested uponthe fact that he was a bishop, an abbot or supervior obtained his high posi-tion by virtue of the church he controlled. Therefore, while a bishopenhanced the importance of his church, an abbot’s rank was dependentupon his church.33

Thus, some monasteries did become quite powerful by heading anextended paruchia or familia. At Iona, for instance, it was the abbot whohad the right to select the head of a subordinate foundation in some cases.34

Technically, Iona had superior authority over these communities. In addition,


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 100

a greater monastery controlled subordinate churches that owed dues, rents,and services. The priests and lay members of these churches would be iden-tified as “monks” in the primary material because they were subject to aprinceps, not because they had taken monastic vows. While this same systemof greater churches and dependent foundations existed in the high MiddleAges, the Irish Church appears to be unique in having monasteries take overcontrol of churches as early as the seventh century.

In addition, the abbots who headed major churches and thus were equalin rank to the bishops, participated in regional synods.35 As discussed inchapter 5, when controversies arose with regard to which Easter table wascorrect, Cummian, an abbot, organized a synod at Mag Léne. The 640papal letter from Pope John was addressed to a series of Irish bishops andabbots, whom it can be assumed, were the participants in a synod in northernIreland. On the Continent, while there were powerful abbots and abbesses,they normally did not participate in church councils. The presence ofabbots at the Irish synods indicates that they normally exercised more polit-ical power than their counterparts on the Continent.

It should also be noted that not only bishops and abbots attended synodsin Ireland but so too did scholars and anchorites/hermits. Cummianaddresses his letter to the hermit Béccán and Pope John’s letter lists bishops,abbots, Saran who was probably a scholar, and “other Irish teachers.” OtherChurch councils in Ireland also note the presence of these four groups.36 InIrish law, a scholar or scribe (someone trained in ecclesiastical law and pos-sibly acting as a judge) had a rank equivalent to a bishop or the head of achurch/princeps.37 This high ranking accorded to scholars probably explainstheir participation in church councils.

Summary

Thus, the organization of the Church in Ireland was more varied and complexthan the older theories allowed. In the past, when historians encounteredprimary evidence pointing to powerful bishops in the seventh century, theyregarded the information as anachronistic. However, in the last few decadesscholars have reassessed the evidence from this period.

Throughout the Irish Church in the early Middle Ages, bishopsremained important and respected. In the law codes, they were awarded thehighest levels of honor, and the prestige of a church was based on the rankof its priest or bishop, not its abbot or lay official. The bishops ordainedclergy, acted as judges, participated in baptisms and confirmation, andoversaw the pastoral mission of the Church. In addition, not only did theepiscopacy remain an influential force in Ireland, it became increasingly


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 101

complex during the seventh century. Just as some kings were attempting todominate lesser ones, the bishops of greater provinces were attempting toestablish authority over lesser bishops and clergy. Into this, both Armaghand Kildare attempted to establish another level of episcopal authority byclaiming to be the archbishopric of Ireland. None of this maneuveringmakes any sense if bishops had truly been sidelined from power. This strug-gle between bishops for jurisdiction and authority also mirrors confronta-tions in the Anglo-Saxon and Continental Churches.

Monasticism is another area where Ireland was in line with Continentaldevelopments, but unique in its implementation. The late sixth and seventhcenturies were a time when monastic ideals were beginning to affect thesecular clergy. Gregory the Great, Honorius, and others admonished bishopsto adopt the monastic values of humility and celibacy.38 There were also dis-cussions about the correct relationship between the episcopacy and themonasteries. As was seen in Merovingian Gaul, kings, bishops, and evenpopes were granting privileges to exempt certain monasteries from episcopaloversight. Therefore, the fact that in Ireland, some of the abbots were alsopriests, if not bishops, can be compared to the Continent where monkswere elevated to the episcopacy and the papacy. These developments maywell be part of the same process of the blurring of divisions between thesecular clergy and monastics. However, as mentioned above, Ireland wasunusual when it came to the power and influence of the abbots of the majorecclesiastical networks. A similar development is not found on theContinent in the seventh century. Even in the extensive network ofColumbanian houses, neither the abbots of Luxeuil nor Bobbio exercisedauthority over their sister foundations.

Romani and Hibernenses

All of the above information is needed to discuss correctly the termsRomani (Roman) and Hibernenses (Irish) that appear in primary sourcesfrom the late seventh and eighth centuries. As with much else on the IrishChurch, historians have needed to redefine these words as theories havechanged. Under the old paradigm, Romani and Hibernenses were the namesof radically different factions in the Irish Church.39 The “Romans” were thepriests and bishops who were attempting to reassert their diminishingpower by emphasizing all things Roman. This included not only the RomanEaster table and tonsure, but also respect for the papacy and a church organ-ized around an episcopal hierarchy. On the other hand, the “Irish” were themonastic party that believed abbots were the highest authority and wanted


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 102

to continue the independent nature of the Irish Church. The “Irish” partywas not particularly concerned about Easter, but they entered into thedebate because of the issues of episcopal and Roman domination thatsurrounded the controversy.40 Since historians no longer believe that theIrish 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 liststopics such as bishops, theft, marriage, and so on, and then statements fromthe Scriptures, opinions by the Church fathers, and synodical rulingsabout the subject at hand.41 For instance here is a small section discussingexcommunication:

Book 40, chapter 1: The evangelist: If your brother sins against you, go andcorrect him only between you and him by yourselves; if he hears you, youhave won over your brother, if, however, he does not hear you, invite one ortwo with you so that every word may stand on the testimony of two or threewitnesses; if he will not hear them, tell the church; if he does not hear thechurch, let him be to you as a tax collector or pagan.42 Paul says: You are tobe companions neither at the table nor in prayer, for what fellowship canlight have with darkness and Belial with justice?43 Roman synod: The excom-municated are excluded from three things, the [kiss of ] peace, from the tableand from mass. Irish synod: All evil men are excommunicated from thesethings, from celebrating together, from partaking at the table, from cohabi-tation, from blessings, from the kiss of peace, from free passage, fromgifts/alms.44

Thus the compiler has provided four statements on this topic, two fromScripture, one from a Roman synod, and one from an Irish one.

By far the most quoted source is the Bible with over 1,000 referencesfollowed by the Church fathers and ancient Church councils.45 “Irishsynod” is mentioned approximately sixty times, with an additional thirtyidentified 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 ofthe canons identified as “Roman” can be traced to continental or ecumeni-cal councils, but thirty are unidentifiable. It is probable that these “Roman”canons come from synods held in Ireland from 640 to 690 during theEaster controversy.47


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 103

At the moment, it is hard to make many definitive statements with regardto this document because a new edition of the Hibernensis is desperatelyneeded. Presently, a printed version of the Hibernensis is available only in an1885 edition by Wasserschleben.48 It was an excellent achievement for itstime, 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 theIrish synods does not demonstrate a radically different tradition at odds withthe practices of the Church throughout Europe. A few sections dealing withinheritance law and property rights reflect Irish culture, but customs variedthroughout Europe. It has been argued that the Irish synods better reflectedIrish society and that the Roman ones were focused on episcopal power andRoman practices.49 However, looking at the Roman canons that cannot betraced to a known continental synod, it is clear that the Romani were also con-cerned with cultural issues and placing the Church within the larger socialstructure as well. For instance, there are canons discussing who can be buriedin a church, procedures for paying debts and fines, penances for murder, thedifferent types and ranks of judges and issues surrounding marriage.50

In instances where canons from both “Roman” and “Irish” sources arepresent for the same topic, often they either do not contradict or do so onlyslightly. From a Roman synod, the penalty for murder is either seven yearsexile or a life sentence at the defendant’s church.51 An Irish synod insteadsays that the penalty for murder is seven years penance under the rule of amonastery.52 In the seventh and eighth centuries, different penitentialsoften listed conflicting penalties and therefore it is not particularly surprisingthat there were at least two ideas found in the canons with regard to thepenance that should be assessed for murder.

Attempting to determine what was implied by the terms Romani andHibernenses is complicated as well by the fact that there are a handful ofcanons that are listed as both Roman and Irish depending on the manuscriptin question. Two of these discuss debts and sureties, four concern wage-laborers, and one outlines the penalties associated with excommunication.53

The confusion over whether these should be “Roman” or “Irish” by laterscribes brings into question the older theories about the disparity betweenthese two groups.

There are some canons in the Hibernensis that clearly condemn the alter-native Celtic practices. In a chapter on tonsures, the “Romans” mandate thePetrine tonsure. The tonsure of Simon Magus is condemned and thenspecifically linked with the British.54 A statement attributed incorrectly toGildas, a sixth-century British cleric, says that the British tonsure is differentfrom that used in the rest of the church and that the British are like the Jewswho are in great darkness. One variant manuscript reading adds that theyalso “celebrated Easter on the fourteenth moon with the Jews.”55


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 104

Another passage states that ecclesiastical disputes cannot be referred tothe British who do not follow Roman customs and depart from the unity ofthe Church.56 It is interesting that the condemnation clearly falls on theBritish Church, who at the time of the composition of the Hibernensiswould have been the only sector of the Church still using the Celtic-84. Itcan be assumed that earlier “Irish” synods condemned the Roman Easterdating, but the compilers chose not to include any of these canons. The factthat Cú Chuimne of Iona was one of the authors of the Hibernensis isfurther evidence that this document must date from after 716 when Ionaadopted the Dionysian table. There would have been no reason to includecanons condemning the British for departing from Roman practices if Ionadid the same.

The Hibernensis supports the theory that after 640, the Easter controversybecame so divisive that Irish ecclesiastical leaders met in separate synodsdepending upon whether they supported the Dionysian table or the Celtic-84.57 Once each side regarded the other as heretical, it would have beendifficult to convene a church council that included those who supportedthe Celtic-84 and those who advocated switching to the Roman table. Boththe canons from the “Irish” and “Roman” synods in the Hibernensis, plus theevidence from other sources demonstrates that Christians were not to asso-ciate with heretics. Once all the churches in Ireland had adopted the Romantable, these divisions ended. Therefore, in the eighth century when CúChuimne of Iona and Ruben of Dairinis compiled the Hibernensis, theycould draw upon rulings from both the “Irish” and “Roman” synods,including a clear condemnation of the British and their adherence to theCeltic Easter and tonsure.

Scholarship

There are a few additional documents that mention the Romani. First, thereis a letter from a certain Colmán to Feradach stating that he had been ableto 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 referringto the Irish “Romans.” However, it is interesting to note that one of themanuscripts that Colmán reports he received from the “Romans” ispreserved in a seventh-century copy from Bobbio.59 Due to the Easter con-troversy, Irish delegations were traveling to Italy. It would have been possibleto secure more accurate texts either from Rome itself or any number ofmonastic houses on the Continent.

In addition, a surviving Hiberno-Latin commentary on the Psalms hasthree alternative interpretations “according to the Romans.”60 Starting with


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 105

Psalm 39, this document provides a set of psalm headings describing thecontext for each Psalm. Irish biblical exegesis as a whole seems to have beenvery influenced by the Antiocene approach that favored historical ratherthan allegorical interpretations of the Scriptures.61 For instance, the morehistorical approach would see the Psalms as reflecting events in KingDavid’s life or Jewish history. An alternative method was associated withAlexandria, which promoted a more allegorical interpretation. In this case,many of the Psalms would be interpreted as prophecies about the lifeof Christ. For most of the Western Church in the seventh and eighthcenturies, it was the allegorical style that was preferred.62

In this document, for each psalm there is a biblical, historical, and alle-gorical or spiritual heading. The three alternative headings for Psalms 49,52, and 54 attributed to the “Romans” are historical.63 The one for 49 fitswell within traditional exegesis. Psalms 52 and 54 were usually associatedwith later Jewish history, but the “Roman” psalm heading lists events inDavid’s life instead. In addition, in this text Psalms 44 and 109 were associ-ated with David even though these two psalms were seen as messianic by theAntiocene School. These interpretations would have been controversial,though they are not identified as “Roman.”64 Therefore, while three psalmheadings are identified as “Roman,” two of which were unusual, it appearsthe Romans were not the only Irish scholars using a very historical approachto interpretation.

Therefore, this document provides inconclusive evidence for what mighthave been distinctive in “Roman” biblical exegesis. These historic interpre-tations 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, itdoes not seem possible to assign the “Irish” party to the allegorical interpre-tation and the “Roman” to the historical. It appears that both groupsadopted historical analysis to be used in association with other methods.Thus this seems more an Irish tendency than a characterization of a subsetof the Irish Church.

A fragment bound in an eighth-century Gospel of Matthew includes thereference to “Mo-Chuoróc maccu Neth Sémon, whom the Romans styleddoctor of the whole world.”67 This document adds that he wrote down acomputus 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, infact it was a system of calculation using Greek letters.68 This document,then, proves that the “Romans” were an identifiable group in Ireland, someof 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,


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 106

the pseudo-Jerome Commentary on Mark has been identified as “Roman”because it condemns celebrating on luna 14, uses the writings of Gregorythe Great, and promotes the authority of the papacy within the Church.69

While the Easter issue does designate this as a “Roman” document, there areproblems with identifying a distinctive style of exegesis. Columbanus, whowould have identified with the “Irish” faction, specifies in his letter that hehas read Gregory’s Pastoral Care and requested additional works from thepope.70 Columbanus’ letters to the papacy and the Irish delegations toRome demonstrate a recognition of papal authority. In addition, the authorof this commentary rejects a historical interpretation of the Psalms.71 Thisis in direct contradiction to the statements assigned to the “Romans” in thecommentary on the Psalms just discussed.

Therefore, these four documents do not appear to demonstrate a distinctform of exegesis by the “Romans” in Ireland. They do support the theorythat there was a recognizable faction within the Irish Church. However, thismay indicate no more than the fact that the Easter controversy split the IrishChurch in two from c.640 to 690. Beyond this, it appears that many of thetraits identified as “Roman” can be found within the wider body of Irishscholarship.72

Summary

In the past, the Romani were associated with a number of different charac-teristics beyond the use of the Roman Easter table. These included specialloyalty 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 dis-tinct tradition of biblical scholarship and exegesis.73 However, many ofthese descriptors are incorrect or uncertain.

It is clear from the evidence that the Romani and Hibernenses did notrepresent two radically different factions of bishops versus abbots. It isCummian, an abbot, who upheld the power of the papacy to determinewhich Easter table was correct. The bishops and the abbots at the synod inthe 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 dis-agreed with Rome about which Easter table was canonical, but he stillbelieved 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 fromthese different groups, the only major point of contention seems to be thealternative Celtic practices. No Irish canons advocating the Celtic-84 wereincluded in this document. However, this does not prove that ecclesiastics


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 107

who attended the “Irish synods” were uncaring about Easter. Instead, it canbe assumed that the compilers of the Hibernensis saw no reason to preservethe information that some in Ireland had once advocated an Easter tableconsidered heretical by the early eighth century. Once Armagh and much ofthe north accepted the Dionysian table in the 680s and then Iona in 716, theEaster controversy was over and unified synods could again be held.

Other statements in the Hibernensis from both Roman and Irish synodsdemonstrate interest in many aspects of Irish society and do not runcounter to important theological issues in the Church. In fact, some of the“Irish” canons were so in line with Church thought that they were incorpo-rated into canon law collections on the Continent in the tenth and eleventhcenturies.74 The Hibernensis was created to be a practical guide and thus itcan be assumed that it accurately reflected the Irish Church of its period.Since a member of the Iona community, clearly a group that would advocatefor the power of abbots if anyone would, helped to compile this document,it is hard to understand why statements upholding episcopal honor andauthority and clearly condemning practices that differed from Rome wouldhave 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 mentionthe “Romans” do not demonstrate an approach to biblical scholarship dis-tinctively different from the “Irish,” and in fact seem to support the generaltrends in Irish scholarship in this period.75 Most statements are somewhatobscure 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 narrowedto reflect only the dispute over the alternative Celtic practices and not largerissues of church organization and scholarship.

Armagh and Easter

In the late 660s with the ascension of Theodore (669–90), Canterburybecame an archbishopric. This very well could have influenced Irelandbecause soon after this both Armagh and Kildare were claiming archiepis-copal status as well.76 It is possible that the Easter controversy played onepart in this struggle. There was a period of about thirty-five to forty yearswhen Kildare had abandoned the Celtic-84, but Armagh had not. In the670s, Kildare may have decided to use its orthodox status as one justificationfor its claim to be archbishopric over all Ireland.77 Armagh may have beenable to claim primacy of honor due to its association with St. Patrick.However, considering the fact that the Irish Church was so divided over


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 108

Easter that the ecclesiastical leadership had to meet in separate synods, it isdifficult 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 tothe heretical British. When this canon was included only the British stillused the Celtic-84, but it can be assumed that before the 680s, the Romanparty would have applied this to Armagh as well.78 Therefore the adoptionof the Dionysian table may have been part of a larger program by Armaghto counter the claims of Kildare not only on the grounds that it was the seeestablished by Patrick but also that it followed orthodox practices.

Evidence points to the fact that by the late 680s Armagh was both claimingarchiepiscopal status and trying to associate more closely with Rome. TheBook of the Angel (c.685) states that disputes should be forwarded “to the seeof the archbishop of the Irish, that is, (the see) of Patrick.”79 Only if a deci-sion could not be rendered at Armagh was the matter to be directed to thepapacy. 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 hasbeen argued that Armagh could not have obtained these relics if it had notadopted Roman practices.81

The evidence from the Dionysian and Celtic-84 also helps to confirmArmagh’s abandonment of the Celtic-84 in the 680s. First the Celtic-84 andDionysian tables did not agree from 666 to 681. Then in the 680s, the tableslisted the same date in 682, 685, 686, and 689 (table 6.1). However, the tablesthen listed conflicting dates until 709. Remembering that churches oftenabandoned the Celtic-84 just before the tables were in agreement in order toease the adoption of a new table, this would have been a perfect time forArmagh to make the switch. Another issue was the increasing problems withthe lunar dates in the Celtic-84. By the 680s, the its dates were four days aheadof the actual moon. By just looking at the moon there is an obvious distinc-tion between luna 14 and luna 10 (figure 1.1). It would be logical to switchtables not only while they were in agreement but also near 690 when theCeltic-84 finished its cycle. In addition, it would have been that much harderto argue for the accuracy of the Celtic-84 when it was so visibly incorrect. Thecongruent Easter dates in the 680s cannot alone explain Armagh’s abandon-ment of the Celtic-84, but it does help to narrow down and affirm the sug-gestion 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


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 109

with daughter houses and dependent churches throughout Ireland,Pictland, and Dál Ríata, it supposedly demonstrates the antiepiscopal sen-timent of the Celts. Yet, the Irish Church was much more complex than thissimple model attests. There were powerful abbots, who unlike their con-temporaries on the Continent, controlled large networks of churches andregularly attended church synods. On the other hand, bishops alwaysremained powerful and important. In the late seventh century, there wascontroversy between the bishops over whether authority should rest at theminor province, major province, or archiepiscopal level, but there was neveran expectation that their honor and responsibility to help lead the Churchwas obsolete.

The alternative Celtic practices, particularly the Celtic-84, were issues ofcontroversy. From the late 620s until 716, the Irish Church was dividedover Easter. Local and regional synods were called and representatives sentto Rome. By the 640s, the situation had become divisive enough that thosewho supported the Celtic-84 and those who advocated transferring to theDionysian table could not meet together. Instead, churchmen of each partygathered in separate synods. It is easy to imagine that this was the only wayother issues could be decided. As long as such an important concern asEaster dating remained in dispute, arguments about which table to followwould undermine reaching unity on other problems.



Year Celtic-84 Dionysian

Easter Luna Luna Easter Luna Luna(Dionysian) (Celtic-84)

680 April 15 14 10 March 25 18 22681 April 7 17 12 April 14 19 24682 March 30 20 15 March 30 15 20683 April 12 14 9 April 19 16 21684 April 3 16 12 April 10 19 23685 March 26 19 15 March 26 15 19686 April 15 20 16 April 15 16 20687 March 31 16 12 April 7 19 23688 April 19 17 13 March 29 21 25689 April 11 19 15 April 11 15 19

Note: Bold�tables in agreement.Source: Celtic-84 Easter and luna dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19, modernized andcycled 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.

1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 110

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


1403972990ts07.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 111

Chapter 7

Iona and Northumbria, 634–65

The northern-most Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the seventh century wasNorthumbria, stretching from the Humber River in the south to the RiverTweed in the north, and at times controlling portions of Pictland,Mercia, and Lindsey (map 4.1). Northumbria was divided into two majorsubkingdoms—Deira in the south with its focus around York and Berniciain the north centered at Bamburgh. Though occasionally ruled by two dif-ferent kings, in the seventh century, more often than not, the two wereunited under a single ruler.

In 616, Edwin gained control of Northumbria with the defeat of KingÆthelfrith (604–16), whose sons, Eanfrith, Oswald, and Oswiu, then wereforced into exile (table 7.1).1 In 633, Cadwallon (d. 634), king ofGwynedd, and Penda (c.626–55), king of Mercia, invaded Northumbriaand killed Edwin.2 The kingdom dissolved into its two parts, Edwin’scousin Osric (633–34) taking the Deiran crown, and Eanfrith (633–34),Æthelfrith’s son, the Bernician. According to Bede, both these men aposta-tized from Christianity and soon died at the hands of Cadwallon’s conquer-ing forces.3

Such were the circumstances that confronted Oswald (634–42) when heinherited the kingdom of Bernicia in 634.4 Upon becoming king, one ofOswald’s first duties was to stop Cadwallon who continued to ravageNorthumbria. Bede included the story in his History that Oswald erected across at the battlefield later known as Heavenfield and instructed all of hismen to pray to God for forgiveness and victory.5 God granted Oswald’shumble request and Cadwallon was finally defeated.6 The triumphant kingwas able to reunite Bernicia and Deira and ruled over a unifiedNorthumbria until his death in 642.7

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 112

113

Table 7.1 Northumbrian family tree

Ælfric

Uffi

Osric

Oswine(644-51)

(633–34)

Ælle

Edwin(616–33)

Acha

Eanflæd

(592–616)

Ida

Æthelric

=

(633–34)Oswald(634–42)

Oswiu(642–670)

(653–57) (651–55)

(642–70)

3. Eanflæd, daughter Edwin

Alhfrith(685–705)

Ælfwine(d. 679)

(705–16)Osric

(718–29)

Æthelfrith

Œthelwald

Oswiu*

Eadfrith Eanfrith

Talorgan

Sub-king DeiraKing of Picts

2 . RHIAINFELLT OF RHEGED

Sub-king Deira Sub-king Deira

Osred

(670–85)(655–65)

1. m. Irish Princess

Cuthwine**

Cœnred Ceolwulf(729–37)(716–18)

Note: * Same as above. ** Claimed descent from Ida.

Ecgfrith Aldfrith

BERNICIADEIRA

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 113


As a Christian, Oswald wanted to continue the mission to convertNorthumbria, begun under King Edwin and Paulinus—a member of themission sent by Gregory.8 As Oswald had spent time exiled in Dál Ríata, akingdom tied to the monastery of Iona, it is not surprising that the kingturned to this monastery rather than the papacy for assistance. As requested,Iona sent a member of their community named Aidan (634–51) to bebishop of Northumbria, along with a number of monks to reside in a newmonastery at Lindisfarne. For thirty years, from 634 until 664, the bishopsof Northumbria were from Iona and all indications point to a close rela-tionship between mother and daughter house.

However, in 664, Oswiu, king of Northumbria called a synod at Whitbyto determine whether his kingdom would continue to use the Celtic tableand tonsure advocated by Iona or would switch to the Dionysian table andRoman tonsure.9 Persuaded by the arguments of the Roman party, Oswiuruled that the older Celtic traditions were to be abandoned. Bishop Colmán(661–64) of Northumbria, and others who were unwilling to abide by thisdecision, 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 sourcesthat provide details on the relationship between Iona, Lindisfarne, and theNorthumbrian Church: Bede’s History and Stephanus’ Life of Wilfrid. It isimportant to understand the major objectives and underlying biases of eachof these works in order to analyze correctly the connections between theCeltic and Roman traditions from the reign of Oswald until the immediateaftermath 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 730sin order to understand his presentation of Iona. In 734, Bede wrote a letterto Egbert (732–66), bishop of York in which he listed what he saw as themajor problems with the Church.11 These included a general lack of pas-toral care, greedy bishops who focused on their own power, and lax and cor-rupt monastic communities. At the end of the letter, he reminds Egbert thatas bishop he needs to monitor the monasteries, provide enough teachers,ensure that all receive the Eucharist frequently, and reform a Church toofocused on riches.12

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 114

Iona and Northumbria, 634–65 115

The themes of reform and the need for the Church to dedicate itself topastoral care are found throughout Bede’s works. It has been argued thatBede ultimately viewed his responsibilities as a priest and as a teacher ofpriests as his most important calling.13 Whether he was composing hagiog-raphy, computistical works, biblical commentaries, or history, his goal wasalways to encourage the Church to better follow Christ and the modelestablished by the apostles.14

In writing the history of the spread of Christianity in the Anglo-Saxonkingdoms, Bede included a significant amount of information on Ionasince it was involved in the conversion of Northumbria as well as events inPictland and Dál Ríata. Bede much admired many of those sent from Ionato Northumbria and saw them as humble, devoted shepherds whose focuswas on the needs of their people rather than their own power and aggran-dizement.15 He wanted to use these bishops and monks as models withwhich to chastise the churchmen of his own day. However, he faced theproblem that those from Iona used the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure, some-thing he could not condone.

In light of this, Bede’s portrayal of Iona is in many ways one of his mostcomplex models. From his viewpoint in the early 730s, he knew that Ionaabandoned the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure in 716.16 However, thismonastery continued to follow the alternative practices for over seventyyears after the letter from Pope John (640) condemning them.17 Therefore,those from Iona were not as disobedient and arrogant as the members ofthe British Church who continued in 731 to use the Celtic-84, but not tobe as highly regarded as those who switched to the Dionysian table in the640s or 660s.

Bede faced two additional issues when it came to his depiction of thosefrom Iona. First, Iona was crucial to the conversion of Northumbria andto have totally condemned this tradition would have implied that theNorthumbrian Church had a heretical or at least schismatic foundation.Bede was grateful to those who had brought Christianity to Northumbriaand he wanted to establish a generally orthodox history for the Church.18

Bede’s second concern was how his portrayal of Iona would influence hispresentation of Lindisfarne. Bede greatly admired Cuthbert (685–87)bishop of Lindisfarne and presented him as an episcopal model par excel-lence. Cuthbert had first entered a monastery associated with Lindisfarne inthe period before the Synod of Whitby. This means that he had followed thealternative Celtic practices during this period. After Whitby, he switched tothe 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 sowould have undermined Cuthbert’s sanctity.

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 115


The Synod of Whitby narrative is the turning point in Bede’s presenta-tion of Iona, much like the meeting with Augustine transforms his portrayalof the British. Before this narrative, he praises those from Iona, but almostalways with the reminder that they used schismatic practices. For instance,when recording the arrival of Aidan as bishop of Northumbria in 634, Bedestates that he was “a man of outstanding gentleness, devotion and modera-tion, who had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge . . .” beforeadding that Aidan, like most of the northern Irish, was “accustomed tocelebrate Easter Sunday between the fourteenth and twentieth day of themoon.”19 The phrase “who had zeal for God but not according to knowl-edge” is from the New Testament book of Romans where the Apostle Paulwrites 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 theIsraelites, tried to serve God, but failed due to their ignorance and unwill-ingness to submit fully to God’s will. The opportunity for forgiveness andgrace still existed, but they needed to admit their error.

Rather than outright condemnation, Bede often adds that those fromIona did not know their Easter table was incorrect.21 For instance, he men-tions that Columba, Iona’s founder, and others used the Celtic-84 “sincethey were so far away at the ends of the earth that there was none to bringthem the synodical decrees of the synods concerning the observance ofEaster.”22 This excuse is not very accurate after 630, but Bede continued tosupport this possibility until the condemnation of the Celtic-84 at theSynod of Whitby.

Even after the Whitby narrative, though Bede no longer excuses Ionafor heretical practices, he never portrays it as negatively as he does theBritish. Churchmen from this monastery had helped in the conversion ofNorthumbria, while he believed the British had not. He also knew that theyadopted the Dionysian table, unlike the British who in 730 still used theCeltic-84. However, from his viewpoint, Iona should have abandoned theCeltic-84 much earlier.

The Quartodeciman Heretics: Stephanus’ Life of Wilfrid

Not much is known about Stephanus.23 He identifies himself as “Stephenthe priest” in the introduction of the Life and states that it was at the requestof Bishop Acca (709–31) of Hexham and Abbot Tatberht of Ripon that heundertook the task of recording the events of Wilfrid’s life. Wilfrid’s reign asbishop of Northumbria was extremely controversial. He was expelled fromhis see and condemned at synods and by kings and archbishops. There wasno possibility that Stephanus could gloss over these events. As with the Life

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 116


of Columbanus, the Life of Wilfrid needed to justify conflict and defend thesaint as a dedicated servant of God. Stephanus and Wilfrid’s supportersclearly felt the need to present an “official” version of events. Throughoutthe Life, Wilfrid is always exonerated for all the conflicts that occurredduring 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, hebecame frustrated with his step-mother, and left home traveling to theNorthumbrian court where he was presented to Queen Eanflæd.24 Whenshe discovered that Wilfrid wanted to enter the religious life, she arrangedfor him to serve Cudda, a nobleman joining the monastery at Lindisfarne.However, within a few years, Wilfrid decided to travel to Rome. Arriving inCanterbury c.653, he learned the Roman version of the Psalter and metBenedict Biscop, who would become abbot of Wearmouth and founder ofJarrow. The two traveled as far as Lyons together.25 Wilfrid then befriendedBishop Aunemundus of Lyons before continuing his journey to Rome.26

While there, Wilfrid adopted the Dionysian table and received a papalblessing before returning to Lyons where he stayed with the bishop for threeyears and received a Roman tonsure.27

When Wilfrid finally returned to Northumbria in c.658, he becamefriends with Alhfrith (655–64), one of King Oswiu’s sons and sub-king ofDeira. 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 WestSaxons, a Frank who was tied to the Columbanian tradition and who wouldeventually become bishop of Paris. In 664, Oswiu called a church council atWhitby to decide whether the Northumbrian Church would follow theCeltic or Roman traditions and it was Wilfrid who presented the case forthe Roman side. When Colmán, Bishop of Northumbria, chose to return toIona rather than abandon the Celtic practices, Wilfrid became bishop in hisplace and traveled to the Continent to be ordained by twelve orthodoxbishops.28

Date of the Composition of the Life of Wilfrid

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

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 117


the Wilfridian circle had the patronage of both the Northumbrian andMercian kings. Wilfrid had helped Osred (705–16) gain the throne inNorthumbria 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 werein power to reinforce the ties between Wilfrid’s supporters and these kingsafter Wilfrid’s death.31

The Life also could have been composed after 716. In this year, the polit-ical situation in both Mercia and Northumbria changed. Æthelbald(716–57) succeeded to the throne in Mercia. The fact that the new king hadbeen in exile during Ceolred’s reign demonstrates that he probablybelonged to a different collateral branch of the royal family.32 Due to theclose ties between the previous four Mercian kings and Wilfrid, it would beunderstandable if Æthelbald chose not to be as supportive. Thus, theWilfridian communities were in a precarious position.

In Northumbria, power also transferred to a collateral branch in 716when Osred was murdered and Cœnred came to power.33 Again taking intoaccount the close ties between Wilfrid and Osred, the Wilfridian group mayhave faced negative political repercussions during Cœnred’s short reign.The political climate in Northumbria, however, soon became more favor-able when Osric (718–29), Osred’s brother, became king. It is during thisperiod, soon after Osric came to power, that Acca and Tatberht may havefelt the need to propagate Wilfridian interests by commissioning the Life.These men may have wanted to remind the new king of the close ties thathad existed between Wilfrid and his brother. This information might nothave helped their cause while Cœnred was in power. Therefore, it is possi-ble that the Life was written in c.718 in response to the changing politicalclimate in Northumbria.

Celtic Material in the Life

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

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 118


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

Summary

Bede was very anxious about the Northumbrian Church of his day. He per-ceived a distinct lack of pastoral concern, simplicity and discipline amongthe leaders of the Church. Many of his writings addressed the issue ofreform and the History is no exception.39 By providing models of good,humble, caring abbots and bishops, Bede was able to offer examples for hisreaders to emulate. This goal of creating useful models to imitate or rejectneeds to be kept in mind when using this text.

When it came to Iona, Bede faced the problem that men from thismonastery had provided the early Northumbrian Church with excellent eccle-siastical leadership, but they had used the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure. Forbishops like Aidan, who lived before the Synod of Whitby in 664, Bedeprovided an excuse that they were unaware of the schismatic nature of theCeltic-84. These were flawed saints who had tried to serve God to the best oftheir abilities but had ultimately fallen into error. In the History, Bede clarifiesthat those who used the Celtic-84 were not Quartodecimans. Those from Ionamay have been ignorant or unwillingly schismatic, but they were not heretics.After 664, when the monastery at Lindisfarne was divided between those will-ing to accept the Dionysian table and those who returned to Ireland ratherthan abandon the Celtic-84, the close relationship between Iona andLindisfarne was severed. It is post–664 Lindisfarne and not Iona that con-tained the men Bede would highlight as his fully orthodox models of ecclesias-tical leadership in the latter part of his History.

Stephanus’ portrayal of the Irish and the British is much less complexthan Bede’s. The disparaging descriptions that accompany Stephanus’comments regarding the “Quartodeciman party” are used to reinforce the

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 119


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

Before the Synod of Whitby

When Oswald was killed in 642 by the Mercian King Penda, Northumbriadissolved back into two separate kingdoms.40 Oswiu (642–70), Oswald’sbrother, became king of Bernicia, while Oswine, a member of Edwin’s fam-ily, became king of Deira (table 7.1). Oswiu first reunited the two halves ofthe kingdom by killing Oswine in 651 and then spent the rest of his reignattempting to expand his authority to neighboring kingdoms.

Oswiu’s support of the conversion of some of the Anglo-Saxon king-doms was a key feature of this policy to acquire additional power andinfluence.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). Oneof the men he appointed to participate in this mission, Diuma (c.655–58),eventually became bishop of Mercia and the Middle Angles.42 Priests weresent 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 EastSaxons and baptized Swithhelm (653–64), Sigeberht’s successor.43 WhileOswiu’s control and influence in these territories waxed and waned, manyof the bishops and priests in Mercia, Essex, and, of course, Northumbriawere from Lindisfarne or houses under her influence.44 It can be assumedthat before 664, these men would have been using the alternative Celticpractices. As these began to be used outside of Northumbria, it likely led toincreasing controversy over Easter dating.

In his History, Bede states that the Easter controversy had been brewingsince the time of Fínán.45 While he was bishop, Rónán, who was probablyfrom a Columbanian community on the Continent, tried to convince himto adopt the Roman table.46 Rónán was unsuccessful, though Bede impliesthat he might have had some victories with others. In addition, Bede addsthe information that at the Northumbrian court, Easter was sometimes

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 120


celebrated twice in the same year. This was due to the fact that Oswiu fol-lowed the Celtic dating while his wife, who was Edwin’s daughter, used theRoman table.47 Oswiu and his wife were married in c.644, but it was notuntil the early 660s that the Easter controversy reached a crisis. This indi-cates that there was more to the Synod of Whitby than simply a dispute overthe correct Easter table. Also, although Whitby took place in Northumbria,the fact that many tied to Lindisfarne were in power throughout the Anglo-Saxon Church means that the decision of this council had wide-rangingeffects.

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 theDionysian Easter table and Roman tonsure, convinced that these prac-tices—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. UnderWilfrid’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 establisha community at Ripon.49 When Alhfrith demanded that these monks aban-don the Celtic table and tonsure, they refused. In response, he removedthem from the monastery and gave the community to Wilfrid, who becamethe 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 importantin the political maneuvering before the Synod of Whitby. Throughoutmuch of Oswiu’s reign, Deira was a sore point. It was first controlled byOswine whom the king had killed and then ruled by Oswiu’s nephewŒthelwald. He rebelled against his uncle, allied with Penda of Mercia andfought against Oswiu at the battle of Winwæd (655/56) where he waskilled.52 It was after this that Alhfrith became sub-king. While Alhfrithfought on his father’s side at Winwæd, he later rebelled and disappearedfrom the historical record after 664.53

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 121


It is possible that after 658, Alhfrith was trying to gain the upper handagainst 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 recom-mendation that Alhfrith invited Wilfrid to Deira.54 Oswald of Northumbria,Alhfrith’s uncle, had married Cenwealh’s sister but there is no evidence of aclose relationship between Alhfrith’s father, Oswiu and Cenwealh. It is possiblethat Alhfrith’s friendship with the West Saxon king may have been part of hisplan to gain political allies against his father.55

It is interesting then that Alhfrith arranged for Agilbert, bishop of the WestSaxons, to ordain Wilfrid as priest. It is possible that Bishop Colmán ofNorthumbria was unwilling to ordain Wilfrid, since Wilfrid and Alhfrith hadjust expelled the monks at Ripon for refusing to adopt Roman practices. It isalso probable that Wilfrid would have refused to have Colmán participate inthis ceremony, as he would have seen the bishop as following heretical prac-tices. In fact, at Whitby, it would be Colmán and Wilfrid who would representthe opposing traditions. Agilbert, on the other hand, was from Gaul. His sisterwas abbess of Jouarre, a Columbanian foundation. Some of his cousins,notably Audoin, bishop of Rouen, also were associated with the Columbaniantradition.56 Therefore, he was firmly in the Roman camp.

King Oswiu, on the other hand, followed the Celtic practices. He hadbeen baptized in Ireland and during his reign, Aidan, Fínán, and Colmán,all men from Iona, were respectively bishops of Northumbria. Alhfrith’ssupport of the Roman practices as the correct and orthodox tradition, there-fore, had political implications. His actions would have been a challenge tohis 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 theCeltic-84 in the Life of Wilfrid may well reflect Wilfrid’s propaganda beforethe Synod of Whitby. Alhfrith may have been using the claim that heheld to correct practices as part of a plan to strengthen his own power andinfluence.58 It is also possible that Alhfrith felt he had something to gain byaligning 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 men-tions this in his History. Analysis of the eclipse has shown that York, an oldcenter of Roman practices, would have only seen a partial eclipse; in thenorth where more people adhered to the Celtic-84, the darkness would havebeen total and for a greater length of time.61 It is easy to see how some con-nection may have been drawn between this event and the controversy overEaster dating. In addition, in the summer of 664, Anglo-Saxon England

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 122


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

Theological and Practical Issues

According to Bede, the Easter controversy in Northumbria arose whileFínán (651–61) was bishop. As mentioned, an Irishman named Rónántried unsuccessfully to convince the bishop to abandon the Celtic table. Thesituation appears to have escalated after this because by the time Colmánbecame bishop of Northumbria in 661, Bede states that many Christianswere afraid they would loose their salvation by celebrating the wrongEaster.63 This is in line with Wilfrid’s accusations of heresy for those whodid not follow the correct table and also with the arguments from both sidesof the controversy in Ireland.

In addition to the theological seriousness of the Easter controversy, thetables were listing divergent dates more often. Though they agreed in 662and 665, after this they did not list identical dates again until 682. For acourt that followed both tables, this would help to explain why the contro-versy 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 Easteron 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 makethings even more confusing, if any were still using the Victorian table it hadtwo 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 tablewere often made the year before the tables were in agreement. This allowedmore time for new tables to be copied and all to be notified of the upcom-ing change. It is interesting, therefore, that Whitby was held in 664 sincethe tables would agree in 665 and not again until 682. Therefore, Whitby

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 123


fits the pattern of a synod being held the year before the tables would agreein 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 theSynod of Whitby.64 According to Bede, at Whitby, Bishop Colmán and hisclergy, Hild (657–80) abbess of Whitby, and Cedd (d. 664), bishop of theEast Saxons supported the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure. Alhfrith, Wilfrid,the priest Agatho, Agilbert (former) bishop of the West Saxons, James thedeacon, and the Queen’s confessor Romanus were present to support theswitch to the Roman table and tonsure. Oswiu opened the meeting by stat-ing that the Church should be united and that the correct tradition shouldbe followed.

Bishop Colmán, the advocate for the Celtic-84, claimed three mainsources of authority for this table: the Apostle John, Anatolius, andColumba and the other holy men of Iona. He argued that Anatolius clearlyadvocated celebrating Easter between luna 14 and 20. In addition sinceColumba was definitely a saint, he would never have supported a table thatviolated the precepts laid out in the Scriptures. The holiness and authorityof John, Anatolius, and Columba clearly demonstrated that the Celtic-84


Year Celtic-84 Victorian DionysianEaster Easter Easter

661 April 18 March 28 March 28 662 April 10 April 10 April 10 663 March 26 April 2 April 2664 April 14 April 21 April 21 665 April 6 April 6 or 13 April 6 666 April 19 March 29 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 cal-culated using Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion, pp. 821–22with modifications to the Victorian table as indicated by Jones, “The Victorian andDionysiac,” p. 411.

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 124


was the correct table. According to Bede’s version of the synod, Colmánprovided no specifics on any problems with the Dionysian table.

Oswiu then called on Agilbert to present the arguments for the Romanside, but the bishop deferred to Wilfrid who was fluent in English and thuscould better communicate with those present. Wilfrid argued that it was theDionysian table that was kept in Italy, Gaul, and throughout the rest ofthe Church. The only ones who did not were some of the Irish, Picts, andBritons who lived on “the two remotest islands of the Ocean.”65 Not onlydid all of the modern Church support the Dionysian table, but it wasimportant to put John’s decision to celebrate Easter on Passover into con-text. When the Apostle established churches, he did so in populations thatwere primarily Jewish and therefore incorporated those parts of the Lawthat were needed to help the Jews convert. Even Paul followed some pre-cepts so as to honor the Jewish heritage of many early Christians. However,since the Church was now dominated by the Gentiles, it was unlawful tofollow these traditions.

According to Bede, Wilfrid pointed out that all of the Churches in the Eastthat 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 cele-brated on luna 14 no matter the day of the week. The Celtic-84 only usedluna 14 if it was a Sunday. More damning was the fact that Colmán and hissupporters misunderstood how dates were listed in the East. In the West, ifEaster fell on luna 14, the celebration actually began the Saturday eveningbefore 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 towhen the evening celebration began. Therefore, he celebrated Easter on theevening of luna 14 and continued it into luna 15. Wilfrid pointed out thatJesus held Passover on the evening of luna 14 and was crucified during the dayof luna 15. John, therefore, never celebrated during the day of luna 14, butused a luna 15 date according to the Western understanding of luna dates. Soboth John and Peter, Prince of the Apostles, used a luna 15 dating, but Peterestablished the Sunday dating for Easter and a luna range of 15–21. This cal-culation was then deemed correct by the Council of Nicaea. Therefore,Colmán followed the traditions of neither John nor Peter, violated Old andNew Testament Scriptures and disregarded the rulings of an ecumenicalcouncil by celebrating Easter during the day of luna 14 and ignoring luna 21.

As for Anatolius, Wilfrid correctly pointed out that this scholar neversupported 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

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 125


that evening and continue onto the next day or luna 15. Therefore, theCeltic-84 did not imitate the rules suggested by Anatolius. Again, the basicissue 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 willnot know many who claimed to prophesy in His name.67 He adds howeverthat he does not think this is the case with Columba. Instead Columba andothers “in their rude simplicity” did their best to serve God and the Churchand were not aware that they were in error. He asserts that Columba wouldhave abandoned the Celtic-84 had he known it was incorrect. It was differ-ent for Colmán and his supporters, however, for “once having heard thedecrees of the apostolic see or rather of the universal Church, if you refuseto follow them, confirmed as they are by the Holy Scriptures, then withoutdoubt you are committing sin.”68 Those who used the Celtic-84 and Celtictonsure were a small minority on the edge of nowhere. In the end the decisionrested on the issue of whom God had given supreme authority— Columba orPeter?

Bede’s story of the synod finishes with King Oswiu asking the abovequestion. All agreed that it was Peter. Oswiu responded that he did not wantto offend the man who held the keys to the gates of heaven and thus theNorthumbrian Church would use the Dionysian table. Colmán refused toaccept this decision and he and his followers left Lindisfarne and returnedto 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 argumentspresented at the Synod. Unlike Bede, who used the narrative about Whitbyto help his reader understand the problems with the Celtic-84, in the Lifeof Wilfrid, Whitby is a chance for Stephanus to display his hero’s eloquenceand prove that Wilfrid was well respected by all in the Northumbria Church.Stephanus says that the British and Irish celebrate between luna 14 and22.70 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 (luna14–20) and the Victorian (luna 16–22) with this statement and assumingthat his readers are not too interested in the specifics of Easter calculations.

In this version of the Synod of Whitby, Colmán argued that Columbahad supported luna 14, resting on the authority of the Apostle John. “Outof respect to our fathers” he was not willing to use the Dionysian table.Wilfrid countered that the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea had ruled that

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 126


Easter should be calculated on a nineteen-year table and that it could neverfall on luna 14. In addition, the Dionysian table was used by Rome and mostof the Church. In Stephanus’ narrative, as in Bede’s, King Oswiu inquiresregarding the authority of St. Peter. Hearing that Christ said he would foundhis 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, theissue of finding the correct table and using “Roman” traditions may havebecome a part of the political maneuvering between Oswiu and his sonAlhfrith in the period after 658. In addition, a solar eclipse, coupled with anoutbreak of plague, may have convinced some that God’s judgment wasupon them. Added to these was the growing problem in the Northumbriancourt of a king and queen who rarely celebrated Easter and fourteen weeksof feasts and fasts at the same time. As Oswiu was attempting to holdtogether the two halves of Northumbria and expand his authority intoother kingdoms as well, it could not have helped to have the Churchdivided over such an important issue.

As the Celtic-84 and Dionysian tables diverged more often and listedheretical dates, things came to a head. As has been seen in Ireland and inMerovingian Gaul, councils that were called to reach a decision on the cor-rect Easter table tended to meet the year before the tables agreed, easing thetransfer to the new table. In 665, both the Dionysian and Celtic-84 tableswere in agreement and would not be so again until 682. This coupled withthe fact that the tables would diverge by almost a month in 666 would haveonly escalated the controversy.

Though Bede’s and Stephanus’ portrayals of the Synod itself differ indepth of detail, both report that Colmán relied on the authority of John andColumba. This is a slightly different list than was used in the disputes inMerovingian Gaul and in Ireland, which tended to use Anatolius, but focuson the fact that Jerome endorsed the bishop’s skill in computistics in addi-tion to more scriptural arguments. According to Bede, by Whitby bothsides were claiming apostolic authority; John for the Celtic-84 and Peter forthe Dionysian. Stephanus presents this differently. Wilfrid calls on theauthority of Nicaea and Rome, making no arguments regarding Peter orJohn’s Easter dating.

This can be explained by the fact that Stephanus, the papacy, and otherslinked the Celtic-84 to the Quartodeciman heresy. In the Life of Wilfrid,Stephanus presents Wilfrid as silent regarding the issue of John’s authority,

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 127


thus not undermining the Quartodeciman accusation. Bede includes theinformation that the supporters of the Celtic-84 were not following John’steaching because they confused the definition of a “day” and always cele-brated Easter on a Sunday. In this way, Bede undermines any apostolicargument for the Celtic-84 and clarifies that the followers of this table werenot Quartodecimans.

Conclusion

With its connections to both Gaul and Ireland, it is not surprising thatNorthumbria became involved in the Easter controversy that was raging inthese areas. As with the Continent and Ireland, Easter was an issue thatrested both on the need to support correct practices and on the Church’sdesire for unity. Disputes over Easter dating and the tonsure led to divisionwithin the body of Christ. In addition, as the Church was trying to convertthe Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, infighting would only distract it from its mission.The Church’s inability to reach an agreement on such an important issuecould not have helped its legitimacy in the eyes of its pagan audience.

In the History, Bede faced the problem that Iona had foundedLindisfarne and was instrumental in the conversion of Northumbria.Wanting neither to call into question the foundation of the Church in hiskingdom nor to condone the Celtic-84, he confronted the challenge ofestablishing Aidan and his compatriots as humble servants of God, whilereminding the reader that they were in error with regard to Easter and thetonsure. He wanted the readers of the History to understand that those fromIona should be commended, but until 716, they were mistaken flawed fol-lowers of Christ. As will be discussed in more detail in chapter 8, Bede alsodid not want to undermine the reputation of those who after the Synod ofWhitby adopted Roman practices and stayed at Lindisfarne. In his discus-sion of the post–Whitby period in the History, many of these people wouldbecome key figures and outstanding models to imitate.

For Stephanus, the Easter controversy was less an issue of the need forChurch unity than one which helped to frame and reinforce the importantwork of Wilfrid within the Anglo-Saxon Church. According to Stephanus,it was Wilfrid, and Wilfrid alone, who introduced the Benedictine Rule andRoman customs to Northumbria and it was the saint’s skill as an orator thatwon the day at Whitby. This is not to argue that Easter was a nonissue toWilfrid. He seems to have been very convinced of the need for theNorthumbrian Church to be in communion with Rome and as a bishopand missionary he would have been aware of the problems that the Easter

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 128


controversy was causing within the Church. However, due to Stephanus’goals for the Life, it was Wilfrid as Roman champion that became the keyissue rather than the specific arguments regarding Easter dating.

It should also be noted that Wilfrid demonstrates the spreading influ-ence of the Columbanian communities. Many of the Frankish churchmenwith whom he interacted were associated with this tradition. While theBenedictine Rule does not seem to have been popular in Rome in the mid-seventh century, it certainly was in the Columbanian circle. Therefore, itcan be assumed that it was through contact with communities using amixed rule of Benedictine and Columbanian influence that Wilfrid becamefamiliar with this Rule and introduced it to Anglo-Saxon England.

The Synod of Whitby was an important event in the Easter controversyof this period. Due to Northumbrian dominance in the late 650s, manychurchmen outside of Northumbria were associated with Lindisfarne andmost likely continued to use the Celtic table until this council. It needs tobe assumed that Oswiu’s condemnation of Celtic practices led to theirabandonment in these other kingdoms as well. In addition, Whitby seri-ously diminished Iona’s power within the Northumbrian Church. Between634 and 664, all the bishops of Northumbria were from Iona and it appearsthat the monastery remained in close contact with Lindisfarne and herdaughter houses. After Whitby, Colmán and those who could not acceptRoman practices returned to Iona and then to Ireland proper. Given the factthat divergent Easter dates were a heresy issue, it is difficult to see how Ionacould have remained closely involved in the Northumbrian Church in theyears immediately following 664.

The Synod of Whitby was not the end of the controversy concerning thealternative Celtic practices. In 664, Pictland, Dál Ríata, Iona, and theBritish kingdoms all continued to use the Celtic-84 and Celtic tonsure. Itwas still over a hundred years before the switch to the Dionysian table wascomplete. As well, political concerns in Northumbria between Wilfrid andLindisfarne continued throughout the seventh century. In these politicalcontroversies, Lindisfarne’s Ionan heritage would continue to be an issueeven after it had fully adopted Roman practices.

1403972990ts08.qxd 18/7/06 9:20 PM Page 129

Chapter 8

Northumbria and Anglo-SaxonEngland, 665–735

By 700, two internal parties influenced the Church in Northumbria.The first was comprised of Wilfrid and his followers and the secondcentered at Lindisfarne and focused on its promotion of the cult ofSt. Cuthbert. The competition between these two groups would fuel thecreation 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 ofWilfrid by Stephanus (716–20), Bede’s prose Life of St. Cuthbert (before721), and the chapters concerning Wilfrid and Cuthbert in Bede’sHistory.1 While Wilfrid was bishop for almost forty-five years, Cuthbertruled for just two from 685–87. It is clear however, that Lindisfarnepinned its hopes as a major cult center and as an important bishopric onthe reputation of Cuthbert. The controversy over the alternative Celticpractices had been solved for the Northumbrian Church at the Synod ofWhitby in 664, but the fact that Wilfrid’s reputation was based in parton his claim as the upholder of Roman orthodoxy created problems withthe promotion of Cuthbert since he had been trained in daughter housesunder Lindisfarne’s control before Whitby. Although Wilfrid had enteredLindisfarne in c.648, he departed for Rome before receiving a Celtictonsure and quickly abandoned the Celtic-84 upon learning RomanEaster dating. Cuthbert followed the Celtic practices until ordered tochange after Whitby. In the face of possible accusations by theWilfridians, Lindisfarne needed to deal very carefully with the reputationof its saint.2

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 130

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 alternativeCeltic practices in Northumbria after Whitby, it is critical to examinethe attitudes of the wider Anglo-Saxon Church on this issue. From thelate 620s, if not before, there were accusations of heresy on both sidesof the Easter controversy. Those who followed the Victorian and theDionysian tables saw a link between the Celtic-84 and the Quartodecimanand possibly Pelagian heresies. For the supporters of the Celtic-84, theRoman tables advocated dark Easters and symbolically supported Pelagianteachings as well. As the controversy continued and as each side becameeven more frustrated with the other, these attitudes became moreentrenched.

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 tobe consecrated by the pope as bishop of Canterbury.3 All the bishops beforehim had been consecrated in Anglo-Saxon England or Merovingian Gaul.Oswiu may have wanted the pope to participate in Wigheard’s consecrationin order to demonstrate that he was firmly in the Roman camp and toensure that there were no questions concerning the legitimacy of his choicefor bishop.

After the arrival of the Anglo-Saxon delegation, Pope Vitalian wrote toOswiu. In this letter, Vitalian states that “by God’s protecting hand, you[Oswiu] have been converted to the true and apostolic faith.” Thepope adds that he is pleased to hear that the king labors for “the conversionof all your subjects to the catholic and apostolic faith . . .” and admonishesthe king to follow Roman practices, especially with regard to Easter, atall times.4 Since there were representatives of the Northumbrian court atRome, Vitalian would have been well aware that Oswiu had acceptedChristianity decades before Whitby. Therefore it appears that the letteris congratulating Oswiu on adopting Roman practices, thereby convertingto the catholic and apostolic faith.5 If this interpretation is correct, itdemonstrates that the papacy continued to link the Celtic-84 withheresy. Thus the king has converted from false teachings to the true faith.

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 131


Writings from the Circle of Theodore (668–90), Archbishop of Canterbury

Theodore was originally from Tarsus in present-day Turkey, and probablystudied at both Antioch and Constantinople.6 Sometime in the 660s, hecame to Rome and resided there as a monk.7 Pope Vitalian chose him to bearchbishop of Canterbury in 668 and he arrived in England in the summerof 669. Theodore immediately set out to reform the Anglo-Saxon Church.He consecrated a number of new bishops to replace those who had died inthe recent plague and also created newer, smaller bishoprics in order tobetter administer the Church. He established a school at Canterbury thatbecame a center of Latin and Greek learning.

In 673, Theodore called a church council at Hertford according to therecord preserved in Bede’s History.8 This synod had representatives fromEast Anglia, Kent, the West Saxons, Mercia, and Northumbria and there-fore 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, namelyon 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 thatthe bishops had the Dionysian table in mind. Therefore, the Council ofHertford established the Dionysian table as the only correct one for thewhole Anglo-Saxon Church.

The Penitential of Theodore also serves as evidence that Easter dating con-tinued to be a controversial issue. In its current arrangement, this documenthas two parts: the first is a penitential and the second is a series of canonicalrulings. While the rulings are not preserved in any document writtenduring Theodore’s lifetime, historians argue that most of them appear to beauthentic and, in fact, some are only applicable to the period betweenTheodore’s arrival in Britain and Iona’s adoption of the Roman Easter inc.716.10 An earlier alternative version of the Theodore’s rulings, the IudiciaTheodori, was known in Ireland by 725.11

In the penitential section, there is a chapter dealing with heretics andthose who interact with them. One clause states that “if one flouts theCouncil of Nicaea and keeps Easter with the Jews on the fourteenth of themoon, he shall be driven out of every church unless he does penance beforehis death.”12 This statement is followed by injunctions that if someoneprays “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 theQuartodecimans, 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

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 132


one knows, however, and is indifferent, when he is moved to penance heshall do penance for ten years.”14 A third advises that if a person has alloweda heretic to celebrate Mass in a Catholic church and “if he does this in con-demnation of the Catholic Church and the customs of the Romans, he shallbe cast out of the Church as a heretic, unless he is penitent; if he is, he shalldo penance for ten years”15 Additional statements list the penances for giv-ing communion to a heretic, persuading others to adopt heresy, celebratingMass for a dead heretic, reciting the names of heretics in church, and theneed to be reordained if the original ceremony was performed by a heretic.16

The second part of the penitential has three canons that are applicableto the Easter controversy. First, if a person has been ordained by thosesupporting the Celtic Easter or tonsure, he will need to be reconfirmed.17

Second, any church consecrated by someone who supports the alternativeEaster and tonsure will need to be reconsecrated.18 Third, those who followthe Celtic Easter and tonsure should not receive the Eucharist and “a personfrom among the nations, or anyone who doubts his baptism, shall be bap-tized.”19 This latter statement may tie to an earlier passage in the penitentialregarding the need for rebaptism for those baptized by heretics who did notbelieve in the Trinity.20

The Penitential of Theodore makes it clear that the Easter controversy wasa major concern in the Anglo-Saxon Church at this time. The situation hadbecome serious enough that those who belonged to the “Catholic” side werenot to associate with those who rejected the correct practices. The tonsurealso was becoming more important as it became linked with the Celtic Easterand thus condemned by association. As discussed in chapter 1, some of thosesupporting the Dionysian table argued that the Celtic tonsure was that ofSimon Magus, the first heretic from whom all other heresies descended. Forsome, it must have seemed appropriate that those who were heretics due totheir insistence on following an incorrect Easter table should wear a tonsurethat 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 ofAldhelm (706–709/10), bishop of Sherborne. He studied under Theodoreat Canterbury and became abbot of Malmesbury in 674. He foundedmonasteries and wrote a number of works including an important letter toGeraint, king of Dumnonia (map 4.1).

In the letter, Aldhelm states that he was asked by a council of bishopsfrom throughout Britain to write to Geraint about the need for Church

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 133


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 unityof the Catholic faith. He has heard “a rumor hostile to the faith of theChurch” that the bishops refuse to wear the Petrine tonsure.22 He chastisesthem for wearing the tonsure of Simon Magus and contrasts this with thesymbolic witness of the tonsure of Peter and the apostles.23

Aldhelm discusses the fact that Geraint’s bishops use the Celtic-84table.24 By doing so they violate the rulings of Nicaea that he states decreeda nineteen-year cycle and Easter limits of luna 15–21. Instead, by usingtheir alternative table they are like the Quartodecimans who celebrate onluna 14 with the Jews.

He also relates that the bishops of Dyfed refuse to associate with thosefollowing Roman customs by neither attending the same services nor eatingat the same table.25 This is similar to the information about Bishop Dagáncontained in the letter of Bishop Laurence (604/10–19) of Canterbury.26 Inaddition, Aldhelm alleges that the bishops refuse the kiss of peace andrequire that all vessels used by the Romans be purified. He then adds that aperson who follows the Roman practices is not allowed to join a Britishcommunity until he completes a forty-day penance.

Aldhelm pleads with the bishops to “no longer detest with swollen prideof heart and with scornful breast the doctrine and decrees of blessed Peter,and that you in no wise haughtily spurn the tradition of the RomanChurch, employing tyrannous obstinacy, for the sake of the ancient statutesof your predecessors.”27 He warns that those who reject the Roman Easterand Petrine tonsure should not expect to be counted among the communityof believers.28 Bede mentions in the History that due to a “book” Aldhelmwrote, many of the British residing in the West Saxon kingdom abandonedtheir alternative practices.29

Summary

After seventy years of controversy over the alternative Celtic practices, eachside was becoming more frustrated with the other. Continuing the trend setby the papacy in c.630, the Celtic practices were continually linked withheresy. Those who advocated the Celtic-84 had sinned and needed to dopenance for their transgression. For some, even those who used theDionysian table, but associated with the followers of the Celtic-84 wereguilty of interaction with heretics and thus penance was assessed.

However, Aldhelm’s letter demonstrates that the exasperation was feltnot only on the Roman side. Upholding biblical injunctions and the canonsof numerous Church councils, the bishops of Dyfed refused to interact with

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 134


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

Bishop Wilfrid (665–709)

In order to fully understand Lindisfarne’s difficulties after the Synod ofWhitby and the development of the cult of Cuthbert, it is first necessary todiscuss Wilfrid’s career as bishop. As mentioned previously, soon after theSynod of Whitby, Wilfrid became bishop of Northumbria and would servein one and another capacity until his death in 709. Thus Wilfrid’s claims ofauthority and his emphasis on Roman practices would haunt Lindisfarnelong after 664.

Stephanus, Life of Wilfrid, and the events in Wilfrid’s life after 665

According to Stephanus, after Wilfrid was chosen as bishop ofNorthumbria, he traveled to the continent to be ordained by orthodoxrather than Quartodeciman bishops. While Wilfrid was gone, King Oswiuappointed Chad, a priest trained at a Lindisfarne foundation, to be bishopin his stead. Rather than creating a large controversy, Wilfrid returned toRipon and later acted as bishop of Mercia where he introduced theBenedictine Rule. In 669, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Theodore,arrived and quickly restored Wilfrid to his see.30 Wilfrid “returned good forevil, 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 bribedArchbishop Theodore to divide Wilfrid’s diocese into three parts andappoint new bishops to these. Unable to convince the king or archbishop toreverse their decisions, Wilfrid traveled to Rome where Pope Agatho(678–81) ruled that he had committed no wrong and should be restored tohis see.33

Upon returning to Anglo-Saxon England, the bishop’s enemies accusedhim 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 relicsWilfrid 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

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 135


punishment for acting against Wilfrid, the queen was possessed by ademon. Recognizing his error, King Ecgfrith released Wilfrid from jail.However, as soon as Queen Iurmenburgh recovered, the royal pair usedtheir power and influence to make Wilfrid flee from court to court in searchof sanctuary.34

The saint finally found refuge for a time in Sussex where he convertedthe people before being reconciled with Archbishop Theodore who thenconvinced the new Northumbrian king, Aldfrith (685–705) to restoreWilfrid to his lands. While there was peace for a time, in 691 Wilfrid wasonce again banished.35 In 702, a council was called at Austerfield to resolvethe controversy, but due to the “avarice” of the bishops, some of them testi-fied falsely against Wilfrid. The bishop was deposed and his followers soonexcommunicated.

To protest these developments, Wilfrid traveled to Rome for a papal rulingand once again was completely exonerated.36 Finally at the Synod of Nidd, in706, the council ordered that Wilfrid should be restored as bishop at Hexhamand 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 hisepiscopate in exile from Northumbria. The controversies that led toWilfrid’s multiple exiles needed to be explained. To do this, Stephanusemployed biblical models. From the Old Testament, he equates Wilfrid toprophets and kings who inaugurated new, reformed regimes.38 Stephanusalso compares Wilfrid to King David on numerous occasions.39 Wilfrid’sbuilding of the church at Ripon is compared with Moses constructing thetabernacle and Solomon the Temple.40

Stephanus alludes to the New Testament as well. In the Scriptures, theApostles suffered at the hands of local secular and religious authorities.Naturally, Wilfrid’s persecution is placed within this context. Like Paul, “whenfalsely condemned by the Jews,” Wilfrid appealed to Rome.41 When Wilfridwas imprisoned by Ecgfrith, he sang psalms and a great light filled his cell, justas happened when Peter was imprisoned. Subsequently, Wilfrid’s chains werealways too large and fell off, just as they did with Peter.42 In addition, the NewTestament is clear that those who truly follow Christ will be falsely accused andpersecuted.43 Given Wilfrid’s association with Roman practices, these parallelsto the events in Peter and Paul’s lives are especially interesting.

Stephanus also looked to the episcopal martyr cults in Gaul whenconstructing his model of episcopal sanctity.44 There were numerousseventh- and eighth-century Lives from Gaul that described bishops who

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 136


were martyred or at least persecuted by secular and ecclesiastical leaders. Forinstance, 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 thejealousy, envy, or corrupt nature of their fellow bishops and secular lords fortheir downfalls. Stephanus used similar arguments to explain why thearchbishops of Canterbury and the kings of Northumbria turned againstWilfrid.

Even Jonas’ Life of Columbanus, which Stephanus probably knew,provided excellent examples of a saint at conflict with the secular and eccle-siastical authorities.47 As previously discussed, Jonas blames QueenBrunhild’s jealousy for the conflict in Columbanus’ life. In much the sameway, Wilfrid is presented as innocently performing his duties as bishop ofNorthumbria when King Ecgfrith and Queen Iurmenburgh inexplicitlyturned against him.

There is irony here of course, for Columbanus was attacked by the epis-copal leadership in part because he upheld the alternative Celtic practices.However, by the mid-seventh century, the Columbanian tradition hadbecome so Romanized that it was through this group that Wilfrid becamefamiliar with the Benedictine Rule. In fact in one of the two surviving man-uscripts of the Life of Wilfrid, Brunhild, identified as a “second Jezebel” isincorrectly accused of persecuting and murdering nine bishops includingWilfrid’s patron Aunemundus, bishop of Lyons.48 It is notable then thatBrunhild, Columbanus’ arch enemy, would be inserted in a copy of the Lifeof Wilfrid even though she had died long before this incident.49 Thisprovides clear evidence of how well Jonas had succeeded in portrayingColumbanus as a fully orthodox saint and the possible ties between theColumbanian and Wilfridian circles.

Therefore, Stephanus constructs Wilfrid as an outstanding servant of theChurch. Due to the fact that Wilfrid refused to deviate from the truth andwas blessed richly by God, he faced persecution by the secular and ecclesi-astical leadership of his day. It was his apostolic nature that led his fellowNorthumbrians to react with envy and jealousy, and his commitment toChrist-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 inNorthumbrian politics even after Whitby. As discussed, Stephanus usually

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 137


refers to those who follow the Celtic-84 as Quartodecimans. However, hisdefinition appears much broader than this in the post-Whitby narratives. Inthe Life, Wilfrid travels to Merovingian Gaul for ordination as a bishopbecause “in Britain many bishops . . . are Quartodecimans like the Britonsand Scots; by them were ordained men whom the Apostolic See does notreceive into communion, nor does she even receive those who have fellow-ship with the schismatics.”50 This is a bold statement that questions theordination of most of the priests and bishops in Anglo-Saxon England atthe time and argues that those who associate with the Quartodecimans arealso to be shunned.51 These are similar to the attitudes found in Theodore’sPenitential.

Stephanus also includes other references to the Quartodeciman partypost-Whitby. According to the Life, during Wilfrid’s absence fromNorthumbria for his consecration, Oswiu, “was instructed by those whoadhered to the Quartodeciman party in opposition to the rule of theApostolic See” to appoint Chad as bishop in Wilfrid’s place.52 In the nextchapter, Chad, “fully understanding then the wrongdoing implied in hisordination to another’s see by the Quartrodecimans,” stepped down asbishop and performed the necessary penance for his sin.53 Since all thosewho followed the Celtic-84 had left Northumbria, Stephanus’“Quartodeciman party” most likely refers to those who adopted Romanpractices but refused to condemn Aidan and Lindisfarne’s heritage.54

Summary

Writing the Life of Wilfrid proved challenging for Stephanus in numerousways. He had to justify why Wilfrid seemed to be involved in controversythroughout most of his career. In order to do this, Stephanus called upon anumber of models. Using the form of episcopal martyr cults from theContinent, he blamed the conflict on the jealousy of Wilfrid’s secular andecclesiastical peers. Looking at biblical models, Stephanus was able to arguethat those who truly followed a Christian path would be persecuted. He wasalso able to turn to the existence of the Quartodeciman party to explainsome of the difficulties Wilfrid experienced after the Synod of Whitby.

Not all of Stephanus’ models were defensive, however. He was at pains inthe Life to stress Wilfrid’s contributions to the Anglo-Saxon Church. Thiswas the bishop who introduced Roman practices, popularized theBenedictine Rule, built and endowed churches, brought skilled artisansfrom the Continent, and converted many in Sussex and Frisia. Perhaps thebest summary of Wilfrid’s accomplishments comes from a speech Stephanusattributes to him at the Synod of Austerfield in c.702, approximately

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 138


thirty-eight years after the Synod of Whitby. After being asked to retire quietlyto 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 trueEaster and to the tonsure in the form of a crown, in accordance with thepractice of the Apostolic See . . . ? And did I not instruct them in accordancewith the rite of the primitive Church to make use of a double choir signingin harmony, with reciprocal responses and antiphons? And did I not arrangethe life of the monks in accordance with the rule of the holy father Benedictwhich none had previously introduced there?55

Thus, Wilfrid and his supporters believed his right to continue to exerciseepiscopal authority was based in part on his crucial role in introducingRoman customs and practices. It would be in the atmosphere of theseclaims that Lindisfarne would need to construct its arguments for episcopalpower and sanctity.

Lindisfarne after Whitby

Just after Whitby, the Lindisfarne community was sundered as membersabandoned the monastery rather than accept the Roman practices. Also, thesee was moved from Lindisfarne to York, diminishing the community’spolitical and religious influence. With Wilfrid as bishop of Northumbriaand Oswiu having ruled in favor of Roman practices, Lindisfarne could nolonger afford to maintain its close ties with Iona, even if Iona had wished toremain in support of a daughter house that rejected its traditions. It is nothard to imagine that this was a very difficult and upsetting time for thecommunity.56

Men from daughter houses associated with Lindisfarne did continue tobe elected and hold important ecclesiastical positions. However, Lindisfarnewas no longer a center of ecclesiastical authority in Northumbria. It wouldbe seventeen years after Whitby until its episcopal see was finally restored.Even then however, the bishop of Lindisfarne controlled only a portionof Northumbria rather than the whole kingdom as in the past. This isbecause when Wilfrid was exiled in 678, Archbishop Theodore divided theNorthumbrian diocese: Bosa, a Whitby monk, became bishop of Deirawith his see at York and Eata, abbot of Lindisfarne, became bishop ofBernicia with his see at Hexham.57 In 681, Eata transferred to Lindisfarneand remained there until he returned to Hexham in 685 so that Cuthbertcould become bishop at Lindisfarne.

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 139


Cuthbert (685–87), Bishop of Lindisfarne and Saint

Lindisfarne’s promotion of the cult of St. Cuthbert is telling. On the sur-face, 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 Cuthbertcontrolled only the diocese of Lindisfarne. On top of this, Aidan was thefirst to lead the community at Lindisfarne and most monasteries are associ-ated with their founding saints. What made Cuthbert the better focus of acult was the fact that while Aidan had always used the Celtic-84, Cuthberthad abandoned the alternative Celtic practices and was elected bishoptwenty-one years after the Synod of Whitby. Thus it would be possible topresent him as an orthodox saint.

It is crucial to keep in mind that the works being produced by and forthe Lindisfarne community about Cuthbert were composed not just to glo-rify and champion the saint, but counter the Wilfridian party as well. In theecclesiastical climate of the late seventh to early eighth century, Wilfrid’sinfluence meant that a saint’s legitimacy was partially defined by his/heradherence to Roman practices.58 In order for Cuthbert to be presented as aviable alternative to Wilfrid, his orthodoxy had to be beyond question.Therefore, Cuthbert’s Celtic past had to be minimized and any possibleRoman connections highlighted or invented.

However, it is important to emphasize that Lindisfarne and her support-ers represented the moderate party in the Northumbrian Church. Thisgroup used the Roman practices but would not condemn the sanctity ofthose who had followed the Celtic-84 in the past.59 Thus while Wilfridwould have argued that Aidan was a heretic, the community at Lindisfarnecontinued to honor its founding saint and in fact interred his remains in aplace of honor near the altar.60

Ironically, the apparent friction between Wilfrid and the moderate partymeant that the alternative Celtic practices continued to be a relevant issuelong after there was any portion of the Northumbrian Church that actuallysupported them. If Wilfrid and his followers had not remained a politicalconsideration or if the Wilfridian circle had not promoted their part inbringing Roman orthodoxy to Northumbria, it is doubtful whether theCeltic heritage of Lindisfarne would have remained much of an issue after664. It probably would have quietly faded away. This is at least whatoccurred on the Continent in association with Luxeuil and theColumbanian monasteries.

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 140


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 mandatedRoman customs, Cuthbert was one of the monks who returned to Melroserather than abandon the Celtic practices.62 After the Synod of Whitby, itappears that Cuthbert decided to adopt the Dionysian table and Romantonsure. He also soon thereafter became prior of Lindisfarne. Around 676,wanting a more anchoritic lifestyle, he moved to a solitary existence onFarne Island, off the coast of Northumbria.63 In 685, Cuthbert, somewhatagainst his will, was chosen as bishop of Hexham. He refused to leaveLindisfarne, so Bishop Eata was transferred to Hexham while Cuthbertassumed the duties at Lindisfarne.64 Within two years, he stepped down asbishop, 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 Lindisfarnecommunity.65 The author provided only a loose chronology and few extra-neous 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 earlytraining at Melrose. In fact the Life “refrains from referring to any person,place or practice as being Irish.”66 The author does state however thatCuthbert received a Petrine tonsure while he was a monk at Ripon.67 Thisis incorrect. Cuthbert was a monk at Ripon in c.660 when it was underLindisfarne’s influence and thus there is little chance that he would havereceived a Roman tonsure there. Instead he adopted the Petrine tonsurewhen he came to Lindisfarne as prior following the Synod of Whitby. Byonly once linking Cuthbert with Roman practices and then never dis-cussing the subject again, the author allows the reader to conclude thatCuthbert had always been trained in Roman traditions. As this documentwas produced at Lindisfarne, it also indicates that the community wantedto disassociate one of its greatest saints from his Celtic heritage.68

The anonymous Life also states that Cuthbert instituted a monastic ruleat Lindisfarne, which was used “even to this day along with the rule ofSt. Benedict.”69 This brings to mind the mixed rules of the Columbaniancommunities. No copy of Cuthbert’s rule survives so it is difficult to assessin what ways if any it was influenced or altered by contact with theBenedictine Rule. What can be said was that in the late seventh and early

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 141


eighth centuries, it was Wilfrid and his party who claimed to have broughtcorrect Roman teaching to Northumbria in the form of the BenedictineRule. Therefore the author of the Life may have been trying to demonstratethat Cuthbert’s way of life was fully compatible with Roman practices.70

The Lindisfarne author also associates Cuthbert with continentalsaints.71 For instance, part of the prologue of the Life comes from the pref-ace to Athanasius’ Life of Antony.72 An additional passage from this workcan be found in the first chapter of book two. Antony is considered one ofthe founders of monasticism and so it is understandable that the author ofthe Life of Cuthbert wished to link these two men. The preface of the anony-mous Life is taken from chapter one of Sulpicius Severus’ Life of St. Martin.Book three also includes another passage from Sulpicius Severus. TheLindisfarne author wanted the reader to understand that Cuthbert was amonk-bishop in the tradition of St. Martin of Tours.

Interestingly, a passage from the material that accompanied theVictorian Easter tables is found in the first portion of the Life’s prologue.Though Lindisfarne would have been using the Dionysian table, this maystill have been a subtle way of reinforcing the fact that both Cuthbert andLindisfarne followed Roman Easter traditions.

The importance of associating Cuthbert with Roman practices can also beseen on the coffin created for him in 698. Just before this date, the monks atLindisfarne discovered that Cuthbert’s body had not corrupted, even thoughhe had died thirteen years previously. With this obvious proof that he was asaint, the community decided to translate his body. This event probably occa-sioned the writing of the anonymous Life and the creation of the LindisfarneGospels. The wooden coffin is surrounded by pictures of the Apostles, includ-ing one of Peter who is portrayed with a Roman tonsure.73 This image of Petermay well have been a way for the community to visibly reinforce theorthodoxy 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 inprose. The metrical Life of Cuthbert was written before 716.75 In it, Bededoes not include the information that Cuthbert had a Roman tonsure nordoes he attempt to create any link between the saint and the BenedictineRule. However, like the author of the anonymous Life, he includes no infor-mation in his poem that would connect Cuthbert with the Celtic practices.

In the preface to the prose Life of Cuthbert, Bede states that theLindisfarne community had commissioned him to write a Life ofSt. Cuthbert and that he had interviewed members of the community for

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 142


this project. He adds that the monks at Lindisfarne read both a preliminaryand final draft of the text. Taking these facts into consideration, there canbe no doubt that the ideas expressed in the prose Life reflect the attitudesand opinions not only of the author, but those of Lindisfarne as well.

There are many theories about why Bede chose to write a new proseLife for Cuthbert when an adequate one had been composed about twentyyears previously.76 First, after the composition of the anonymous Life ofCuthbert, Stephanus completed the Life of Wilfrid. Bede may have felt theneed to produce a new Life that clearly emphasized the saint’s condemnationof Celtic practices. Also, Stephanus, when composing the Life of Wilfrid,incorporated much of the prologue of the anonymous Life of Cuthbert intohis own prologue along with additional parallels and borrowings.77 It ispossible that Stephanus was responding to the anonymous Life. This, inturn, forced the Lindisfarne community to commission a new Life ofCuthbert.

Other historians point to the fact that Bede portrays Cuthbert as amodel monk-bishop.78 It is possible that this was a direct attack uponWilfrid’s controversial career. In the anonymous Life, Cuthbert is primarilya miracle worker. In Bede’s prose Life, Cuthbert has been transformed intoa master of pastoral care both for the Lindisfarne community and the widerlay 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 toaccept the office.80

The Life of Wilfrid includes significant information on Wilfrid’s “perse-cution” by the archbishop of Canterbury and different Northumbrian mon-archs.81 Keeping this in mind, it is interesting that Bede’s construct ofCuthbert incorporates the theme of suffering, both in terms of persecutionand from physical illness.82 However, in the prose Life and the History, Bedesubtly implies that Wilfrid is the persecutor, the one who causes problemsfor Cuthbert and Lindisfarne.83

In all probability, Bede wrote the prose Life for a number of complexreasons. Whatever his varied goals for the work, he needed to remain silentabout Cuthbert’s earlier adherence to Celtic practices.84 For example, in thenarrative concerning the establishment of the monastery at Ripon in c.658,Bede states that Abbot Eata instigated “therein the same rules of disciplineas were observed at Melrose.”85 Since he has not discussed the fact thatMelrose was a daughter house of Lindisfarne and therefore following Ionantraditions, the reader is ignorant of Ripon’s Celtic ties. In addition, he pro-vides no explanation for why Cuthbert and the monks at Ripon were forcedto return to Melrose soon after its foundation.86 It is only by correlating thisevent with the History, written about ten years later, that the reader is aware

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 143


that Cuthbert was kicked out of Ripon for refusing to adopt Romanpractices. Therefore, in the Life, Bede is able to discuss Cuthbert’s earlytraining without ever mentioning that it was Celtic.

Interestingly, Aidan is referred to twice in the prose Life. Bede first relatesthat Cuthbert had a vision of angels carrying a soul, later identified asAidan, to heaven. This same narrative is found in the anonymous and met-rical Lives.87 The story serves to reinforce the belief of the moderate partythat Aidan was not a heretic.88 However, while he is described as holy andvirtuous, none of these accounts provide any information linking thebishop to Iona.

The second mention of Aidan is found within Bede’s explanation of whyLindisfarne was both an episcopal see and a monastery.89 Bede tells thereader that this situation exists because Aidan was a monk and continued tolive a monastic life even while a bishop. However, Bede does not link thiswith Iona, but instead uses Pope Gregory to support this practice.90 Hequotes portions of the Libellus Responsionum where the pope instructsAugustine that since he is bishop as well as a monk, he should live a com-munal life with his clergy.91 Therefore, there is no mention of Iona, butLindisfarne’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 associatesCuthbert with St. Benedict numerous times in the Life either by directlymentioning him by name or including miracles that mirror those found inPope Gregory’s writings about Benedict.92 Cuthbert is also associated withSts. Antony and Augustine.93

In addition, Bede presents Cuthbert as condemning the Celtic Easterdating.94 According to the prose Life, just before Cuthbert’s death, he calleda number of the Lindisfarne community together. He advised them to offerhospitality to those who seek it, but to “have no communion with thosewho depart from the unity of catholic peace, either in not celebrating Easterat the proper time or in evil living.”95 This speech is not included in either theanonymous or metrical Life and whether or not Cuthbert actually said thiscannot be verified. It seems somewhat out of character given Cuthbert’stravels in Pictland, which still adhered to the Celtic-84.96 However, giventhe fact that this is a supposed eye-witness account by Herefrith, abbot ofLindisfarne, and that the Lindisfarne community approved Bede’s finaldraft of the prose Life this must represent what Lindisfarne wanted peopleto believe. The fact that this death speech is included in a Life written inc.720 demonstrates the continuing controversy surrounding the alternativeCeltic practices. Why else would the Lindisfarne community have wantedBede to present Cuthbert condemning those who violated the unity of theChurch by using the Celtic-84?

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 144


Summary

The various Lives of Cuthbert provide crucial information on the ongoingramifications of the Easter controversy in the Northumbrian Church. AsWilfrid continued to be a major force in the Northumbrian Church fordecades after Whitby and as he based his authority partially on his reputa-tion for bringing Roman practices to Northumbria, Lindisfarne’s Celticheritage remained a hindrance. The fact that Cuthbert occupied one of thebishoprics created when Wilfrid was exiled and Theodore divided thediocese did not help matters.

Lindisfarne clearly lost political power after the Synod of Whitby withthe removal of the see to York. As it attempted to reestablish itself as a bish-opric, cult-center, and political player in Northumbria, the communityneeded to find a saint. Aidan, while founder of Lindisfarne and bishop ofthe whole of Northumbria for many years, was compromised by his supportof the Celtic Easter table.

Cuthbert was a viable option for a cult to rival Wilfrid. He had upheldthe Celtic practices before 664, but he abandoned them after Whitby.While Wilfrid seemed to spend much of his career as bishop in the centerof controversy and in exile, Cuthbert’s was one of relative peace. If the writ-ers of his Lives could establish his “Roman” credentials, then Cuthbertcould assist Lindisfarne in justifying its elevation as a cult center.

The writer of the anonymous Life gave Cuthbert a Roman tonsure andcompared him with Roman saints, including verbatim passages from otherLives. Bede’s metrical Life dropped the information regarding the Romantonsure, but managed to discuss Cuthbert’s background without ever hintingat the Celtic ties. When Bede composed the prose Life he establishedCuthbert’s Roman heritage through the linkage to orthodox saints, connect-ing Lindisfarne’s organizational structure to the advice given by PopeGregory the Great, and providing a death speech that clearly and forciblycondemned those who continued to use the Celtic-84. Though the threeLives differ in their portrayal of Cuthbert, all establish him as a thoroughlyorthodox 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 whichBede decided to portray both Wilfrid and the Lindisfarne community in hisHistory. In many ways it is this work, rather than the various Lives producedin early eighth-century Northumbria, that provided the “final word” on

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 145


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

Bede’s Portrayal of Wilfrid

Except for the Synod of Whitby narrative, Bede tends to underplayWilfrid’s influence in Northumbria. While Wilfrid was an importantbishop for over forty-five years, his political and ecclesiastical involvementin 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: twodiscuss events surrounding Whitby and Wilfrid’s appointment to the epis-copacy, one is focused on his efforts to convert the south Saxons, and thelast is a general overview of his life.99 All of this can be contrasted withBede’s focus on Cuthbert even within the History. Although Cuthbert wasbishop for only two years, and only bishop of Lindisfarne, Bede includes sixchapters that focus on his career and miracles.100

One reason for Bede’s silence about Wilfrid’s episcopacy is that thebishop was continually at odds with the Northumbrian secular andecclesiastical hierarchy. His career highlights the factions within theNorthumbrian Church and the political maneuvering behind many events,something that Bede minimizes. In the History, Bede usually portrays theNorthumbrian secular and ecclesiastical leadership working together topromote the good of the Church.

In addition, Bede believed that bishops should live simple lives, dedicatedabove all to pastoral care.101 Wilfrid’s building large stone churches, hismany retainers, his desire to keep Northumbria as a single diocese—somethingBede saw as incompatible with good pastoral care—were all at odds withBede’s models of a good bishop.102

Another issue is that some of those portrayed as excellent role models inthe History could have been tarnished by revealing too much about Wilfrid’scareer. For instance, it can be assumed that the exile of the bishop ofNorthumbria would merit some detail, but Bede simply states that conflictarose between King Ecgfrith and Wilfrid.103 No explanation is given. In thenext chapter, Bede adds that while in exile, Wilfrid traveled to many places,including Rome, but he does not mention that Wilfrid obtained a rulingfrom the papacy that either he should be restored to the whole of thediocese of Northumbria or, if it did remain divided, that he should be ableto choose his episcopal colleagues.104 Bede had a problem at this point inthe narrative. Neither King Ecgfrith nor Archbishop Theodore abided by

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 146


the pope’s decision. In addition, Lindisfarne was one of the dioceses thatshould have been returned to Wilfrid. Thus, Bede’s model of episcopal sanctitytechnically held his see against papal ruling. By simply presenting Wilfrid’sexile as a purely secular conflict, Bede did not have to discuss controversialdetails 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 thealternative Celtic traditions was in flux. While the British still stubbornlyclung to their heretical practices, Iona and its associated monasteries hadfinally adopted the “Catholic way” in 716, approximately fifteen yearsbefore the completion of the History. The Lindisfarne community had beenfollowing the Dionysian table and Roman tonsure for almost seventy years.In addition, the influence of the Wilfridian party seems to have been fadingallowing Bede more freedom to discuss Lindisfarne’s past.

By 731, although three Lives had been written about Cuthbert, none ofthese included any information on the foundation of Lindisfarne. It seemsthat Bede’s History is the first work to incorporate these stories since there isno surviving Life for Aidan. Lindisfarne appears to have been at pains toseparate itself from its Ionan past and to condemn the Celtic-84 in the writ-ings that emerged from this community in the early eighth century. Thefact that, in the History, Bede is very open that Aidan, Fínán, and Colmánwere from Iona most likely reflects the changing ecclesiastical climatewithin Northumbria where information about these early bishops wouldnot seriously harm the community’s reputation as long as the Celticpractices were condemned.

As with Bede’s prose Life of Cuthbert, throughout the chapters onCuthbert in the History, the reader is never informed that the saint was oneof the monks thrown out of Ripon for refusing to convert to Roman prac-tices, nor is his Celtic heritage mentioned at all. Bede portrays Cuthbertas Lindisfarne’s greatest saint and an excellent ecclesiastical role model.Cuthbert is shown not only practicing the best qualities of those like BishopAidan, but following the Roman practices as well. Here is a fully orthodoxsaint who embodies both the monastic and priestly ideals.105 Bede is carefulto ensure that Cuthbert’s earlier support of Celtic practices is hidden so as tonot taint the episcopal model he had created for the Northumbrian Church.

Summary

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

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 147


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

Conclusion

By 670, not only were the Irish accusing each other of heresy in regard toEaster, but many other authorities were as well. The papacy continued toencourage those using the Celtic-84 to come back to the Catholic and apos-tolic faith. The Penitential of Theodore includes penances both for actuallyusing this table and for just associating with those who did. Aldhelm’s letterdemonstrates that at least some of the British bishops refused to associatewith those who adopted the Dionysian table. While Bede always explainedthat those from Iona were simply ignorant, this would not have reflected theopinion 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 theeighth century. Divergent Easter dating was clearly a matter of concern tomany in the early medieval Church. However, it also could become anelement in ecclesiastical politics well beyond the specific issues of Eastercalculation. In Northumbria, Wilfrid’s claim to authority based on hisintroduction of Roman practices and his branding of the Celtic-84 asQuartodeciman meant that in many ways the Easter controversy continuedlong after Whitby. In fact, it appears that the Church was divided betweenthe extreme views of Wilfrid and those of the moderate party who refusedto condemn Lindisfarne’s early bishops. However, even with the existence ofthese more moderate voices, if Cuthbert were to be a saint who could com-pete with Wilfrid, his Celtic past needed to be explained, either by deliber-ately creating “facts” or by simply being silent with regard to his heritage.

By the time of the completion of the History the situation was somewhatdifferent. Iona had abandoned the Celtic-84 bringing it back into theorthodox fold. In addition, the influence of the Wilfridian communitieswas on the wane. Therefore, Bede could add a significant amount of

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 148


information about Aidan to his History, portraying him as saintly, butflawed through the ignorance of using the wrong table.

It is Wilfrid who may have suffered most from Bede’s History. Thoughbishop from 664/65 to his death in 709, he practically disappears from thenarrative at many points. While highlighting Wilfrid’s role at Whitby, Bedenever portrays him as the sole savior of the Northumbrian, and by exten-sion, the Anglo-Saxon Church. Whether due to personal animosity, adislike for Wilfrid’s pastoral style, or simply an attempt to minimizeany conflict in the Church, Wilfrid plays only a supporting role in Bede’sconstruct of the early Northumbrian Church.

1403972990ts09.qxd 15/7/06 1:06 PM Page 149

Chapter 9

Iona, the Picts, and the British

By 700, only two major groups continued to use the Celtic-84 and Celtictonsure. These were Iona and its associated communities including thosein Dál Ríata and Pictland, and parts of the British Church. Iona was facedwith internal divisions as some adopted the Roman table while othersrefused. In Pictland, as in Northumbria, the crown played a leading role inunifying the Church behind one Easter practice. For the British, it is prob-able that a combination of increased isolation and politics influenced theirdecision to switch to the Dionysian table in 768.

Primary Sources

One primary source that has not yet been introduced but is vital for under-standing this period is the Annals of Ulster.1 It was compiled sometime inthe eleventh century, but most scholars argue that at least portions of theentries 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 commentaryor explanation is usually provided. For instance, among the events for theyear 716 (715) are noted:

1. The killing of the king of the Saxons, Osred, son of Aldfrid, grandson ofOswy.

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 Í5. 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

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 150

Iona, the Picts, and the British 151

For most years in the late seventh and early eighth century, approximatelyfive to eight events are recorded. Historians have spent tremendous timeattempting to understand these often cryptic statements and even todaythere is disagreement over the interpretation of some entries. Also compli-cating matters for the historian is the fact that the entries in the Annals ofUlster are incorrect by one year in this period and thus entries are adjustedone year forward. For instance, the entry quoted above for 716 is actuallylisted 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 theAnnals of Ulster, some of these appear to have incorporated informationfrom annals compiled at Iona before 740. Recent work on the chronologi-cal apparatus of some of the major Irish annals is assisting historians incomparing the dates and events among these various documents.5

From the British side, historians can reference the ninth-centuryHistoria Brittonum or History of the Britons, tenth-century Annales Cambriaeor Welsh Annals, and thirteenth-century Brut y Tywysogyon or Chronicle ofthe Princes.6 As with the Irish annals, these sources provide little explanationor commentary on the events they list within each year. The fact that eachwas compiled significantly after the dates in question also causes difficultieswith using these sources.

Iona

The abbots of Iona were involved from the beginning of the Easter controversyin Ireland. As discussed previously, both Cummian’s Letter and the onefrom Pope John in 640 were specifically addressed to Ségéne, abbot ofIona.7 It has been suggested that as additional Irish churches abandoned theCeltic-84, Iona became increasingly entrenched in its support for this table.It appears that Iona justified using the Celtic-84 in part because Columbahad done so. Since Iona’s authority rested on Columba’s sanctity and asmost of the abbots in the seventh century were related to Columba, it isunderstandable 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 Ionato be involved in the Easter controversy.9 He was good friends with KingAldfrith of Northumbria who himself had spent time at Iona.10 Adomnán

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 151


visited Northumbria in c.685/86 where he was able to secure the release ofIrish prisoners taken when Ecgfrith, the previous king of Northumbria,invaded Ireland in 684.11 He made a second trip to Northumbria two yearslater. During one of these visits he may have made the decision to abandonthe Celtic-84.12 If he did accept the Dionysian Easter in 686 or 688, thiswould fit the pattern of switching Easter tables near the time that the twotables were in agreement (table 6.1). Although he was unable to convincethe monks at Iona to use the Roman table, Adomnán traveled to Irelandwhere he may have been instrumental in the adoption of the Dionysiantable by some of the northern Irish churches.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to reconstruct the exact chronology of theseevents. Bede reports only one visit to Northumbria and this is clearly coun-tered by Adomnán’s own testimony in the Life of Columba.13 The Historyalso implies that when Adomnán was unable to convince the Iona communityto abandon the Celtic-84, he traveled to Ireland and did not return untilaround 703, just before his death.14 However, the Irish annals state thatAdomnán visited Ireland in 692 and 697 and there is no reason to believehe was away from Iona between these trips.15

One way to solve the contradictions between the Irish annals and Bede isto assume that Adomnán made a third trip to Northumbria sometime near703. It was at this time that he realized Iona supported an Easter table dif-ferent 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 theneed to adopt Roman practices, and died soon thereafter.16

The major flaw with this theory is the idea that Adomnán was unawareof the problems with the Celtic-84 until a third visit to Northumbria.Given that Iona had been involved in the Easter controversy in Ireland sincethe 630s and that the issue had so split the Church that separate synods hadto be held, it is highly unlikely that Adomnán would have been unfamiliarwith the conflict and the arguments on each side.17 It may well be that on avisit to Northumbria he was convinced of the correctness of the Dionysiantable, but he was aware of the issues long before this. The other problemwith this theory is that there is no record of Adomnán making a third tripto Northumbria late in his life.

Another alternative theory is that Bede was wrong and Adomnán neveraccepted the Roman Easter dating.18 Critics argue that there is no record ofthis decision in the Irish annals or the Life of Columba. In fact, our onlyaccount of Adomnán adopting the Dionysian Easter comes from Bede andother sources which used his History. Although it is dangerous to arguefrom silence, the lack of any record in Irish sources about the adoption ofRoman dating by Adomnán can be explained. As mentioned, one major sourcefor the annals until 740 was a chronicle kept at Iona. It is understandablethat Iona would not have wanted to record a major division in the community,

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 152


especially the abbot practicing what some would have viewed as a hereticalEaster. After Iona’s adoption of Roman practices, it still would not havebeen politically expedient to record that while Adomnán and possibly aportion of the community had accepted the Roman tables by c.690, it tookthe rest of the community another twenty-five years to make the switch. Inthe Life of Columba, Adomnán would not have wanted to remind the readerhow the saint used an Easter table many saw as heretical. Jonas faced thesame problem when writing the Life of Columbanus.

The other problem with this theory focuses on Bede. It is true that inthe History, he condenses approximately sixteen years of Adomnán’s lifeinto a few paragraphs and that he seems to have either not known all thedetails of the abbot’s career or felt it was not necessary to include manyspecifics. However, at the time Bede finished the History, there were still anumber of people who would have been alive during Adomnán’s career.Bede himself would have been approximately fifteen years old whenAdomnán visited his monastery. If he had deliberately created a claimthat his contemporaries knew to be false, this would have undermined hiscredibility.

One other piece of evidence regarding Adomnán’s adoption of Romandating also comes from the History. In 711, Nechtan, king of the Picts, wroteto 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 writtenand the close ties between Iona and the Picts, there would have been no rea-son for Ceolfrid to claim Adomnán’s allegiance to the Roman table if it wereuntrue. Nechtan was in a position to know which table Adomnán sup-ported. Thus, it seems likely that Adomnán did accept the Dionysian Eastersometime in the 680s.

Besides not mentioning Adomnán’s second visit to Northumbria and hisreturn to Iona before 703, another area where Bede may be incorrect is inthe claim that Adomnán convinced the northern Irish churches outside ofthe control of Iona to abandon the Celtic-84.20 As discussed earlier, Armaghhad probably adopted the Dionysian table before 687.21 It is possible thatBede knew approximately when Adomnán switched to the Dionysian tableand assumed that the change at Armagh was somehow associated with thisevent.22 Another possible interpretation to Bede’s statement is that whileArmagh and its associated churches had made the change to the Romantable, other congregations were still using the Celtic-84 and it is thesecommunities to which Bede referred.

This confusion regarding Adomnán’s life between 686 and 704 onlycomplicates attempts to understand how Iona operated when part of thecommunity followed the Celtic-84 but the abbot had accepted theDionysian table. Although Bede argues that none of the Iona familia

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 153


accepted the Roman dating while Adomnán was abbot, it is possible thatsome communities followed him.23 Thus, after c.690, Iona and its dependentmonasteries split into two groups—one using the Celtic-84 and the otherthe Dionysian. This dual usage continued until all of the Iona communityaccepted the Dionysian dating in c.716.

It does not seem possible that the Iona community itself or any individualcommunity within the familia could have functioned using both tables.After 689, the tables did not agree until 709 and 713 and diverged after thisuntil 743. Since fourteen weeks of the ecclesiastical calendar is contingentupon the date of Easter, a monastery using both tables would need to followdifferent fasts, prayers, and celebrations for between fifteen and eighteenweeks depending on how badly the Easter dates diverged. It is difficult toimagine any community functioning when it had to adapt to providingdifferent meals, chanting divergent passages of the Scriptures, and all of theother abundant complexities. In addition, if part of a community hadchosen to use a dating method others saw as wrong, this would have onlyheightened tensions. Given that there were theological arguments attachedto each table and accusations of heresy abounding in the wider Church, itseems impossible that any individual community could have survived intactfor 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 theSynod of Whitby, allegiance to Columba was a major claim in the continu-ing support of the Celtic-84.24 In light of this, Adomnán’s loyalty toColumba may have been in doubt with his switch to the Roman Easter. Hiscomposition of the Life of Columba around the hundredth anniversary ofthe saint’s death may have been a way of proving to the community that itwas possible to support Columba and the Roman method of calculatingEaster.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 atthe community. This may demonstrate that monks of Iona were one of themain audiences for his work.27

In the Life, Adomnán presents Columba as a saint equal to those such asMartin of Tours and Antony. He quotes passages form Sulpicius Severus’ Lifeof Martin and Evagrius’ translation of Anathanasius’ Life of Antony.28 As withthe Lives of Cuthbert, there are also connections to Pope Gregory’s narrativesabout Benedict.29 Another passage in the Life of Columba directly compares amiracle with one found in the Life of St. Germanus of Auxerre by Constantius

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 154


of Lyons.30 All of this may have been an attempt to prove to the communitythat he truly believed in Columba’s holiness and status as a saint and that hisrejection of traditional practices did not undermine this certainty.

Of course, Adomnán would have also written the Life with Iona’s critics inmind. His use of other Lives demonstrates that no matter which Easter tableIona followed, its founder was a saint. It has also been suggested that Wilfrid’schampioning of the Rule of St. Benedict may be one of the reasons Adomnánspecifically compared Columba to Benedict. In this way the Life was acounter to the accusations of heresy by Wilfrid and his party.31

In 697, Adomnán was instrumental in bringing together a large numberof secular and ecclesiastical leaders at the Synod of Birr where ninety-oneguarantors agreed to support and uphold the Law of Adomnán or the Lawof Innocents.32 This law or regulation set extraordinary punishments forviolence committed against clerics, children, and most especially women.While normally within Irish society crimes against women resulted in finesapproximately half the size of those assessed when a similar crime wascommitted against a man of the same class, in Adomnán’s law additionalfines were added for crimes against women. In the case of murder, it wasactually double the fine normally paid for killing a man.33

Iona played a vital role in both the propagation and the administration ofthis law. It was only due to Adomnán’s links through the Columban commu-nities and his personal family ties that kings from Ireland, Dál Ríata, and thePicts supported this law. The ability to bring so many important secular andecclesiastical leaders together demonstrates a high level of respect forAdomnán and the authority he could call upon as head of the Columbanfamilia. In addition, this document specifically states that Iona would choosethe 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 Formurder, 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 hisloyalty to St. Columba himself and to the Columban familia, the composi-tion of the Life of Columba and the propagation of the Law of Adomnán mayhave calmed some of these fears. He had not only upheld the saintly natureof Iona’s founder, comparing him with popular continental saints, he alsohad expanded the community’s moral authority as the guardians of a lawthat protected the innocent.

After Adomnán’s Death

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

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 155


instance, taking information from the various annals it appears thatConamail was abbot from 704 to 710, but Dúnchad was abbot from 707 to717. Dorbéne ruled for five months in 713 while Fáelchú took power in716 until his death in 724.36 It has been suggested that this might reflectIona’s division into two camps: one following the Dionysian table and theother the Celtic-84.37 However, others have argued that this may simplyreflect the appointment of a co-abbots and therefore there was no internalcontroversy within the community. The annals do not provide additionalinformation and there is no other evidence to help historians interpret thesestatements. Therefore, while it is certainly possible that the community splitover the Easter controversy, this cannot be proven. In the end, Sharpe hascorrectly cautioned us to “admit that it is impossible to interpret how theabbacy was occupied during this period.”38

Summary

While the exact chronology of Adomnán’s career is difficult to construct, itis likely that he adopted the Dionysian table sometime in the mid- to late680s. At this time the Columban familia divided between those communitiesthat followed Adomnán’s lead and those which supported the traditions setin place by Columba. While this would have caused tremendous stresswithin the Columban community, it appears that Adomnán worked toprove that it was possible to honor Columba and to support the Dionysiantable. Both the Life of Columba and the Law of Adomnán uphold thejurisdiction and authority of Iona and her associated communities.

After Adomnán’s death, there appear to have been two abbots of Iona in707–10, 713, and 716–17. It is possible that these instances reflect conflictover the Easter controversy with the two groups recognizing differentabbots. However, it could be simply that Iona decided to have co-abbots orthat the information presented in the annals is incorrect. At best all that canbe said, given the practical and theological aspects of the Easter controversy,is that tension and polarization within the Columban familia seemsinevitable.

Letter from Abbot Ceolfrid to Nechtan, King of the Picts

Around 711, Nechtan (706–24/25, 728/29) wrote to Ceolfrid, abbot ofJarrow, requesting arguments for adopting the Roman Easter and tonsure.

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 156


Ceolfrid responded with a long letter condemning the Celtic and Victoriantables and the Celtic tonsure. As Bede was already an expert in computisticsby this time, many historians assume that he assisted his abbot in thecomposition of the letter.39

It is difficult to assess why Nechtan chose to write to Ceolfrid when hedid. Bede says that before writing the letter, Nechtan had wanted to aban-don the Celtic-84, but needed additional arguments “in order to make thechange more easily and with greater authority.”40 According to Bede,Nechtan was interested not only in Easter, but the tonsure and buildingchurches in the Roman style. It is certainly possible that Nechtan under-stood some of the practical and theological issues in the Easter controversy,including the increasing computistical problems in the Celtic-84, but thisdoes not adequately explain his overtures to Jarrow.

Iona had been influential in Pictland since the time of Columba and allindications point to its continuing importance in the Pictish Church whenNechtan 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 beenspared twice during recent plagues because they revered Columba.44

Additional support for the continuing involvement of Iona in Pictlandcomes from place-name evidence. Not only are there many dedications toColumba, but to Adomnán and other late-seventh and early-eighth-centuryabbots as well.45

Contact with Adomnán and his successors raises the question as towhether the Picts adopted the Dionysian table and Roman tonsure underthe influence of Northumbria, as Bede indicates, or with the encourage-ment of the Roman party within the Columban familia. Some historianshave agued that Adomnán himself began the process of converting thePictish Churches to the Roman Easter.46 Veitch goes further than this,claiming that at the time Nechtan wrote to Ceolfrid, most of the PictishChurch had already adopted Roman practices; the south through the workof Adomnán and the north due to Curetán, a bishop associated with theColumban community. In his theory, the letter was simply part of a plan tosecure better relations with Northumbria during a period of internal strife,and Nechtan’s “adoption” of Roman practices throughout his kingdomimplied very little actual change.47

An analysis of the limited evidence available supports a theory thatNechtan faced a number of challenges in the period when Ceolfrid’s wrotehis 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 In711, a battle was fought against the Northumbrian lord Berhtfrith and the

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 157


Picts were defeated.50 In 713, the annals report that Ciniod son of Derilihad been killed and that “[Talorg] son of Drostan is held captive by hisbrother king Nechtan.”51 It has been postulated that while Ciniod may havebeen Nechtan’s full brother, Talorg was only a half-brother by the samemother. Both Nechtan and Bruide were from a line of the royal family con-nected to the Cenél Comgaill of Dál Ríata some of whom had settled in theregion of Culross after 685.52 On the other hand, Talorg and his family’spower base may have centered on Atholl as he is later identified as its kingin the annals.53 If these reconstructions are correct, it is possible that theevents of 713 reflect the attempt by Talorg and his family to seize powerfrom Nechtan.54

Given the Northumbrian attack in 711 and the internal political situa-tion within Pictland between 710 and 715, it is possible that Nechtan’sinterest in the Easter question was part of a larger plan to establish betterrelations with Northumbria. Osred (705–16), king of Northumbria, hadinherited the throne as a child. Wilfrid was both Osred’s foster-father and,according to Stephanus, instrumental in having the young boy chosen asking. Ceolfrid, to whom Nechtan’s letter is addressed, had been at Riponwhile Wilfrid was abbot and later this bishop had been a patron andsupporter of Jarrow.55 Though Wilfrid had died in 709, the court stillsupported the Wilfridian communities, so choosing to write to Ceolfridmakes sense if Nechtan was hoping that aligning with the NorthumbrianChurch could assist political relations as well. Along with Bede’s reputationin computistics, this could be another reason Nechtan wrote to Jarrow,rather than say Lindisfarne.

While better relations with Northumbria were important to Nechtan, itis also probable that he was faced with a Church divided over the Easterquestion. Parts of southern Pictland had been under Northumbrian controluntil 685, so these sectors would have been following the Dionysian tableduring this time. More importantly, the Iona familia had split into twocamps: those who supported Adomnán and the Dionysian table and thosewho believed that the Celtic-84 was the correct table. In addition, there area number of church foundations in this period that may point to newColumban communities in Pictland that used Roman practices from thestart. During a period of internal political strife, Nechtan did not need aChurch separated between Roman and Celtic factions. Just as Oswiu calledthe Synod of Whitby for political reasons and to secure ecclesiastical unity,Nechtan may have seen the need for both a political alliance and a unifiedChurch.

It appears likely that Nechtan wrote to Jarrow after his defeat in 711 bya Northumbrian lord. The Celtic-84 and Dionysian tables during thisperiod were in agreement in 713 and would not be so again until 743.

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 158


Adopting the Roman practices in 712 would have allowed extra time toensure that all communities had copies of the new table by 714.

Confirmation that the Celtic-84 was still used by portions of the PictishChurch comes from Bede. He states that before Nechtan wrote to Ceolfrid,the king had already made the decision to follow the Dionysian table. Theproblem was that he was having trouble convincing some of the correctnessof this decision. If this is true, Bede would be right in asserting that Nechtanneeded additional arguments to win over the Celtic-84 supporters. Ofcourse, Nechtan could have written to Ireland, Canterbury or any numberof places for this information. The fact that he wrote to Ceolfrid supportsthe theory that he needed a better relationship with Northumbria and toheal the breach within his Church.

Content of the Letter

The letter opens by stating that there are three rules found in the Scripturesfor determining the date of Easter: first, that Passover occurs in the firstmonth; second, that the Feast of Unleavened Bread should happen in thethird week (luna 15–21); and third, that the Resurrection occurred on aSunday. Ceolfrid admits that the Old Testament refers to the fourteenth,but argues that those who believe Easter should be celebrated on luna 14misunderstand God’s instructions. Exodus states that the Passover lamb isto be killed during the day on the fourteenth, but then eaten that eveningwhen the fifteenth moon has risen (table 9.1). The Bible also states that theFeast of Unleavened Bread should occur from the fourteenth to twenty-firstdays of the month and then refers to this as seven, not eight days.56 Thesolution to the mystery is that the Feast should be celebrated from sundownon the fourteenth to sundown on the twenty-first—only seven, twenty-four-hour 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 ofthe twenty-first day.58

Thus Ceolfrid argued that those who follow a luna 14–20 dating as usedin the Celtic-84 are in error because they celebrate Easter during the day ofluna 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 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22at sundown Passover

Day 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 159


evening, they are beginning their Easter celebration on the thirteenth day ofthe month. This day is never mentioned in the Scriptures and, in fact, is thelast day of the second week. The Celtic-84 is also in error because it excludesluna 21, the last day of the third week, from its Easter cycle. This date isclearly mentioned in the Law and thus should not be ignored.59

Those who use the Victorian table have the opposite problem. By usinga lunar range of 16–22, they ignore luna 15—a date clearly honored inthe Law. By saying that Easter can fall as late as luna 22, they move Easterinto the fourth week and celebrate on a date never mentioned in theScriptures. Ceolfrid reminds the king that Easter must fall within the thirdweek 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 anew era.60

The letter next discusses the equinox and the fact that it occurs onMarch 21. In addition, the Paschal full moon must always occur on or afterthe equinox or Easter will fall in the wrong month. Ceolfrid argues thatthose who put the Paschal full moon before the equinox “agree with thosewho trust that they can be saved without the grace of Christ” in otherwords, the Pelagians.61 The Victorian table allowed luna 14 to occur as earlyas March 18 when there are more hours of darkness than light. Thus, thistable 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 asalvation issue for “those whose faith in God is untainted and their love forneighbor sincere.”62 Though there are different tonsures used in theChurch, the one worn by Peter is the best and that by Simon Magus is theworst. Peter’s hairstyle reminds believers that they are saved throughChrist’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 ridiculeand disgrace, gladly and readily” and are eagerly awaiting their heavenlycrown.63

On the other hand, Ceolfrid states that Simon Magus’ tonsure is “fittingfor simoniacs . . . for in this present life those whom they deceived thoughtthey were worthy of the glory of the everlasting crown; but in the life tocome they are not only deprived of any hope of a crown but moreover arecondemned to eternal punishment.”64 True believers will utterly reject sucha tonsure. Just in case the reader is unsure about who would wear SimonMagus’ tonsure, Ceolfrid relates a conversation between himself andAdomnán, where the Ionan abbot admitted that he wore Simon Magus’tonsure, but he was not a simoniac. Ceolfrid chastises Adomnán that heshould wear Peter’s tonsure as “a sign that you agree in your inmost heartwith all that Peter stands for.”65 Thus Ceolfrid leaves the reader with the

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 160


question of why an abbot as holy and well respected as Adomnán wouldknowingly wear the symbol of the arch-heretic and Peter’s enemy.

Due to the fact that Adomnán was so well respected in Pictland, Ceolfridhad to be somewhat diplomatic in condemning the Celtic tonsure. He doesstate that Adomnán was holy, prudent, humble, and a devoted servant ofGod.66 He also adds that those who use Simon Magus’ tonsure are notguilty if they uphold the unity of the Church. Therefore, Ceolfrid presentsAdomnán as a holy man of God, who was not harmed by his tonsurebecause he had chosen to uphold the unity of the Church. For those whowore Simon Magus’ tonsure and used the heretical Celtic-84, things seemmuch 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 allcopies of the Celtic-84. He also had all clerics and monks wear the Romantonsure. According to Bede, due to these changes “the reformed nationrejoiced to submit to the newly-found guidance of Peter, the most blessedchief of the apostles, and to be placed under his protection.”67

Summary

Due to the Northumbrians and to Adomnán’s influence, Roman practicesbegan 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, internalrivals to the throne, and a divided Church, may well have decided that itwas time for the crown to intervene in the Easter controversy. Thus, likeOswiu and the Synod of Whitby, political issues may have triggered theneed for ecclesiastical unity.

Bede indicates that Nechtan had already sided with the Roman partybefore writing to Ceolfrid, and simply needed additional informationagainst the Celtic-84. This was provided in a letter written by Ceolfrid inc.712. The letter discussed the fact that the Celtic-84 misinterpreted the OldTestament and therefore listed dates that were too early. In addition, itexplained that the Celtic tonsure was that of Simon Magus. Those who trulyfollow the universal Church should not wear the tonsure of the arch-heretic.

As a result of Ceolfrid’s letter, Nechtan ordered abandonment of theCeltic practices in his kingdom in c.712 since the tables were in agreementin 713. Thus, as with Whitby, it appears that the Pictish Church fullyadopted the Roman practices upon royal order. However, as will bediscussed below, there may have been some communities that continued touse the Celtic-84 even after 713.

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 161


The letter to Nechtan is one of the more complex chapters in Bede’sHistory. It hints at changes and controversies within the Pictish Church butprovides little explanation of these events. In addition, Bede decided toinclude the full text of Ceolfrid’s long letter rather than simply paraphrasingit. As such, it provides a detailed summary of the arguments against theCeltic and Victorian tables, and the Celtic tonsure near the very end of theHistory. It also continued Bede’s story of the move toward unity of practiceswithin 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 Irishannals record the adoption of the Roman tonsure in 718.68 A few yearsbefore 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 studyin Ireland and joined the monastery of Rathmelsigi. In 664, as a plagueswept the British Isles, he made a vow never to return to his homeland, tobecome an exile for Christ or peregrinus.69 If Bede is correct that he died in729 at the age of ninety, he would have been about seventy-seven when hearrived at Iona.

Bede credits Egbert with finally convincing Iona to adopt the Dionysiantable, though he provides no details about why this decision was made. It ispossible that a new generation of monks who did support the Roman tradi-tions had come to power and so the changes were possible. It had beenabout twenty years since Adomnán decided to switch tables. In addition,Iona may have felt increasingly isolated. The Anglo-Saxon, Pictish, andIrish Churches had all stopped using the Celtic-84. In particular, the aban-donment of the Celtic-84 by Pictland in c.712 may have increased the con-troversy at Iona itself. In fact, Kirby has argued that Iona may have adoptedthe Roman table not in 716, but 717 when Nechtan expelled theColumban monks from Pictland.70

Other issues surround the Easter tables. By 690, the Celtic-84 luna dateswere five days off from the more accurate Dionysian table. A five-day dif-ference 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 12as luna 19. However, this date was actually luna 14. As the Celtic-84departed farther from reality, this may also have undermined argumentsthat this table was correct.

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 162


The Celtic-84 and Dionysian tables were also contradicting more often.For instance in the 680s when Adomnán and Armagh changed to theRoman 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, inthe 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. IfIona was divided between pro-Roman and pro-Celtic parties, this, coupledwith 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 controversycontinued within the Columban family even after 716. The Annals of Ulsterreport in 717 on the “expulsion of the community of [Iona] beyond theDorsum Brittaniae by king Nechtan.”71 As usual, no additional commen-tary or explanation is included. No historical documents outside of theannals mention this event leaving historians unable to determine withcertainty why Nechtan chose to exile some of the Columban communities.

Some things can be said however. A few historians have pointed out thatit is highly unlikely that Nechtan expelled everyone associated with the


Year Celtic-84 Dionysian

Easter Luna Luna Easter Luna Luna(Dionysian) (Celtic-84)

710 April 13 14 9 April 20 16 21711 April 5 17 12 April 12 19 24712 March 27 19 14 April 3 21 26713 April 16 20 15 April 16 15 20714 April 1 16 11 April 8 18 23715 April 21 18 13 March 31 21 26716 April 12 19 14 April 19 21 26717 March 28 15 10 April 4 17 22718 April 17 17 12 March 27 20 25719 April 9 20 14 April 16 21 27720 April 21 14 8 March 31 16 22721 April 13 16 11 April 20 18 23722 April 5 19 14 April 12 21 26723 April 18 14 9 March 28 17 22

Note: Bold�tables in agreement.

Source: Celtic-84 Easter and luna dates from McCarthy, “Easter Principles,” pp. 18–19, modernized andcycled 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.

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 163


Columban houses.72 First, Bede makes no mention of this event that wouldcertainly have been of interest. Also, there is no evidence that the PictishChurch suddenly needed to replace most of its clergy. It is interesting tospeculate on the fact that place-name evidence may demonstrate that anumber of Pictish communities were founded in Adomnán’s honor.73 It canbe imagined that those who supported the Dionysian table would havewanted to remember the abbot who first brought about this change.

In addition, this event should not be seen as involving Pictish nationalismsince it is doubtful that Nechtan would have viewed the Columban monksas representatives of Dál Ríata or a foreign element in his Church.74 Thoseassociated with Iona had been active in Pictland since the late sixth or earlyseventh century and many of the monks in these communities would havebeen Pictish. While there were battles between Dál Ríata and Pictland espe-cially in the 740s, Iona’s ties to both kingdoms appear to have continued.

Other historians have argued that Nechtan’s decision rested on secularpolitical considerations. For instance, the Columban familia may havechosen to support one of his rivals to the throne. By expelling the churchmenwho opposed him, he could replace them with more loyal followers, thusextending royal authority.75

While secular politics were probably involved, it seems possible that theEaster controversy may have contributed to this event. It is highly likely thatsome communities in Pictland may have resisted changing tables.76 Giventhat Nechtan was trying to unify the Church in a time of political uncer-tainty, he could have remained in negotiation with these communities,hoping to convince them to abandon the Celtic practices. The tables werein agreement in 713, so the problem would not have been truly evidentuntil 714. As the controversy dragged on into 717, Nechtan may have givenup all hope and simply expelled those who would not come into conformitywith the rest of the Pictish Church and Iona. It is even possible thatpro-Roman factions within Pictland encouraged the exile of those whowould not use the “correct” Easter table. However, all of this must remainin the realm of speculation. There is no evidence to help historians elucidatethe political and ecclesiastical maneuvering of this period.

The British Church

By the 730s, there were only a few regions still using the Celtic-84 andCeltic tonsure. Most of the British kingdoms in the north were underNorthumbrian domination and thus presumably were using the Dionysiantable.77 Strathclyde alone remained independent, though Eadberht of

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 164


Northumbria attacked Kyle in c.750. In the south, the West Saxonsexpanded into British territory and by the early eighth century controlledDevon.78 Mercia also conquered land at the expense of the neighboringBritish kingdoms in this period. Thus very little, if any, territory outside ofmodern-day Wales and Cornwall remained under British control by theearly part of the eighth century.79

After 731, the sources are silent with regard to the British Church andthe Easter controversy until 768 when the Welsh Annals records thatElfoddw converted the churches under his authority to the Roman Easter.80

This document lists an Elfoddw as Archbishop of Gwynedd in 809 and it ispossible that this is the same man.81 The Brut Y Tywysogyon or the Chronicleof the Princes reports that in 770, “the Easter of the Britons was changed bycommand of Elfodd, a man of God.”82

These entries raise a number of questions. First, it is not possible todetermine which Britons made the switch to the Dionysian table in 768.Some British areas had switched tables even before being incorporated intoAnglo-Saxon kingdoms. Bede, for instance, reports that some of those inDevon abandoned the Celtic-84 in c.680 after Aldhelm wrote to theirking.83 There is no evidence about which table Strathclyde or Cornwall usedin this period. Also unknown is whether this statement is referring to all ofthe Welsh kingdoms or strictly Gwynedd, if Elfoddw was even bishop there.Davies has theorized that in c.768, Elfoddw may have overseen a councilcalled to determine the correct date of Easter.84 If so, this would resemblewhat occurred in Merovingian Gaul, Ireland, and the Anglo-Saxon king-doms in attempting to solve the Easter controversy. Whether or not secularpolitical leaders were involved in this as with Oswiu at the Synod of Whitbyis unknown. It is also impossible to determine if this council would haveincluded churchmen from throughout the Welsh kingdoms.

Unfortunately, the primary material for this period is so fragmentarythat historians cannot determine why change occurred at this time.85

Certainly as more kingdoms adopted Roman practices, combined with theexpansion of the West Saxons, Mercia, and Northumbria, the Church inWales may have become increasingly isolated. In addition, it is also possiblethat the mid- to late eighth century was one of political and ecclesiasticalcentralization in Wales, alongside an integration of continental practicesinto the Church.86 If this is correct, then there may have been pressure toconform to the Roman table. However, there must have been an event orseries of events that forced the issue in 768.

Looking at the Celtic-84 table, there are some clues as to why the Eastercontroversy might have reached a crisis in the late 760s. First, the table wasto begin a new cycle in 774. Second, the Celtic-84’s luna dates were six daysahead of the dates listed in the Dionysian table. In 767, the Celtic table

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 165


identified April 12 as luna 14, but the more accurate Dionysian would havecalculated this as luna 8. Looking at the moon, an error of one or two daysis not that visually noticeable, but there is a significant difference betweenluna 8 and luna 14 (table 1.1).

This deviation in luna dates meant that each table listed dates that wereunacceptable to the other side (table 9.3). For instance in 768, the Celtic-84listed Easter as occurring on April 3 and identified this as luna 16. TheDionysian table should have had no problems with this date, except thataccording to this table, April 3 was luna 10 and therefore not appropriate at all.The same problem happened in reverse. The Dionysian table identified April10 as Easter in 768 calculating it as luna 17. This luna date should have workedfor the Celtic-84, except that the Celtic table would have listed April 10 as luna23 and therefore outside the bounds of all Easter tables. The fact that theCeltic-84 and Dionysian table listed luna dates that varied by six days meantthat the tables never agreed again. While in the early seventh century, the twotables listed identical dates every few years, between 700 and 770, the tablesplaced 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 thatthe luna dates listed in the Dionysian table were significantly more accuratethan those in the Celtic-84. As the Celtic table moved further out ofsequence with reality, the tables rarely if ever agreed. While it is impossible toknow what secular or political circumstances might have led some of theBritish to adopt the Dionysian table in 768, the increasing problems with theCeltic-84 and the limited number of those still using this table easily couldhave contributed to whatever controversy or political maneuvering may havebeen occurring within the Welsh Church of the mid-eighth century.


Year Celtic-84 Dionysian Table

Easter Luna Luna Easter Luna Luna(Dionysian) (Celtic)

765 April 7 17 11 April 14 18 24766 March 30 20 14 April 6 21 27767 April 12 14 8 April 19 15 21768 April 3 16 10 April 10 17 23769 March 26 19 13 April 2 20 26770 April 15 20 14 April 22 21 27

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

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 166


Welsh Church Organization

As a branch of the Celtic Church, historians once assumed that by theseventh century the Welsh Church transformed from an episcopal model toone dominated by abbots who controlled large, geographically dispersedterritories. As the abbots became more powerful, they displaced the bishopswho eventually exercised only nominal authority within the Church struc-ture. This theory was supported by the monastic terminology that wasprominent in the surviving documents.87

However, just as with Ireland, historians have reassessed the idea that theWelsh Church was primarily monastic in the early Middle Ages.88

Historians highlight that in the primary sources monastic language is oftenapplied in nonmonastic situations. For instance a “monk” could besomeone under vows, but also a tenant who farmed ecclesiastical land. Amonasterium could refer to an ecclesiastical community headed by a bishopand comprised of clerics, deacons, and others; none of whom fit the classicaldefinition of a monk.89

In addition, rather than disappearing from the records, bishops weredesignated as important political figures who ruled geographically defineddioceses. 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 “SevenBishop Houses of Dyfed” may indicate not only that St. David’s hadauthority over six lesser bishops, but the existence of nonclerical churchmanagers as well since two of these men were not required to be in clericalorders.92 While these references to episcopal authority once would havebeen dismissed as anachronistic, historians now believe they may well reflectreality. Therefore, unlike the more popular notions of a church headed byholy abbots, the organization of the Welsh Church appears to have beenquite similar to the rest of Western Europe.

It is difficult to determine if the Welsh had a system of ecclesiasticalranks 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 asmall kingdom.93 Decisions from two possible sixth-century councils, theSynod of North Britain and the Synod of the Grove of Victory survive, butthere is no indication of who actually attended these meetings.94 One deci-sion from the Synod of North Britain assigns the same penance for an abbotas for a bishop and also indicates that a doctores or a teacher/scholar mightassign penances, but this evidence is inconclusive.95 There is also the infor-mation provided by Bede that Augustine met with British bishops andscholars.96 This may indicate that, as in Ireland, scholars had a rank equal tothat of bishops so they were entitled to attend church councils. However,

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 167


Bede also mentions that scholars attended the Anglo-Saxon Council ofHertford.97 Therefore, the Augustine narrative does not demonstrate con-clusively the status of scholars in the British or more specifically WelshChurch.

Conclusion

While it is not possible to know the exact dates that all the British kingdomsabandoned the Celtic-84, it does seem that by 768, the “Easter controversy”was basically resolved for the churches in the British Isles. The Picts hadadopted the Dionysian table, followed shortly thereafter by Iona and its asso-ciated churches. The period from 718 to 770 would have seen the BritishChurch increasingly isolated and adhering to a table that was clearly in error.

As discussed, the sources for the abandonment of the Celtic-84 by thesethree groups are extremely difficult and vague. Much of the informationneeded to truly understand all of the political and ecclesiastical motives ofthose involved in the controversy are simply not available to historians. Thisis especially true for the British Church in the eighth century.

As the controversy of Easter continued throughout the seventh and intothe eighth century, it is possible that some groups saw the use of the Celtic-84as a vital part of their identity. For Iona, support for the Celtic-84 becameequated with support for Columba. Thus Adomnán and those advocatingthe Dionysian table had to prove that it was possible to honor Columba andpromote Iona while discarding the Celtic-84.

The British as well may have used the Celtic-84 as an identifiabledistinctive that set them apart from their Anglo-Saxon, Irish, and Pictishneighbors.98 However, by the mid-eighth century, as the problems with theCeltic-84 became even more obvious, many British churchmen must havecome to the conclusion that it was time to abandon this table and come intoconformity with most of the rest of the Church in Western Europe. If itis correct that the churches in Wales were looking increasingly at continentalmodels and thus entering a period of innovation rather than conservatism,then continued support of the Celtic-84 would have made little sense inthis environment.

1403972990ts10.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 168

Chapter 10

Conclusion

By the end of the eighth century, the Easter controversy between the Celticand Roman traditions had been resolved. During this same period, theCarolingian kingdom also abandoned the Victorian table.1 This meant thatWestern Europe was united in following the principles of the Dionysiantable. Also by this time, the practice of tariff penance was gaining inpopularity, and the British, Irish, Frankish, and Anglo-Saxon peregrini weretransforming Europe.

Easter

This study has argued throughout that the Easter controversy was a veryimportant issue in the medieval Church. If the dates for Easter varied byone month, as they did in 612, then the ecclesiastical calendars woulddisagree for eighteen weeks. This would have been especially difficult whensome were still observing the Lenten fast and others had already celebratedEaster. However, even more than the practical difficulties, it was the theo-logical issues involved in the Easter controversy that were most worrisome.In so many ways the tables could symbolically violate the core of the Eastermessage: Christ’s death and resurrection and the resultant salvation. Anyaspect that created a “dark” Easter was to be rejected. To celebrate Easterbefore the equinox, before the new year, before or after the third week, tooearly or too late in the moon’s cycle all violated the symbolic importance ofEaster. As the controversy continued through the seventh century and intothe eighth, deviation in Easter practices became a heretical issue.2

1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 169

It is fortunate that surviving documents present the arguments used tosupport each of the three main Easter tables. Columbanus’ letter to PopeGregory discusses the problems with the Victorian table, but also justifies theuse 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 letterby Ceolfrid to Nechtan, king of the Picts, and the description of the Synodof Whitby contained in Bede’s History clearly demonstrate why these menbelieved the Dionysian table was correct and detail the problems with boththe Victorian and Celtic-84. While other documents also contain argumentsfor or against the different tables, these four are the most critical in summa-rizing their problems. Columbanus’ letters are especially valuable because solittle was preserved that supported the Celtic-84.

It is somewhat difficult to determine when those involved in the seventh-century controversy began associating the different tables with heresy. Ingeneral, from the fourth century, Christians came to equate schismaticpractices with heresy.3 Therefore, in many instances, “beliefs and practicesthat had been acceptable at an earlier time . . . became outdated and werethen reckoned inadmissible and, finally, heretical.”4 The controversies overEaster dating from the late second century reflect this development.

In his letter to Pope Gregory, Columbanus appears to have been carefulnot 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 whocelebrate Easter on luna 21 or 22 do so at the peril of their souls. Near theend of his letter, he warns Gregory to think carefully before disregardingJerome’s opinion of Anatolius because those who undermine the “authorityof 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, refusedto associate with Laurence and his compatriots.6 It is possible that Dagánsaw the Anglo-Saxon bishops as heretics and was following synodical guide-lines to withhold fellowship. Since the Irish Church and the members of theGregorian mission would have agreed on all major theological tenets, Easterdating appears to be the only possible heretical issue between them.Certainly, Laurence appears to associate Dagán’s actions and the Easter con-troversy in his letter. It must be cautioned, however, that there is simply notenough evidence to prove conclusively that the date of Easter had become aheretical matter before the 620s.

On the other hand, by the late 620s, the supporters of the Celtic-84 andthe Victorian table perceived divergent Easter dates as a matter of heresy. Inc.628, Pope Honorius denounced the “Quartodeciman error” in the IrishChurch.7 Cummian includes the information in his letter that Ségéne,Abbot of Iona, had accused him of being a heretic for using Roman Easter


1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 170

dating. He responds with a counter charge against Iona.8 In addition, John’sletter in 640 accused the Irish of creating a new variation of theQuartodeciman heresy by allowing Easter to be celebrated on luna 14. Heassociates either the Celtic or the Victorian Easter table with the Pelagianteachings in this same letter.

After 640, the two sides polarized even more. Irish churchmen had tomeet in “Roman” and “Irish” synods. Bede reports that by the 650s, somein Northumbria feared that they might lose their salvation using the wrongtable.9 The Penitential of Theodore outlines numerous penances that were tobe assigned to those who celebrated Easter at the incorrect time and thosewho interacted with these heretics.10 Aldhelm’s letter proves that some ofthe Welsh clergy refused to associate with their Anglo-Saxon brethren dueto differences over Easter.11 Stephanus in the Life of Wilfrid followed thepapal lead by identifying those who used the Celtic-84 as Quartodecimans.

While the Easter controversy was a serious issue in and of itself, it alsoplayed a part in the ecclesiastical politics of this period. For Bobbio, obtainingthe papal privilege from Honorius was probably contingent in part on theiradoption of the Roman Easter table. Armagh may have decided to abandonthe Celtic-84 because it undermined its claim to be the archbishopric ofIreland. For decades after the Synod of Whitby, Lindisfarne’s Celtic pastmay have been controversial due to Wilfrid and his association with Romanpractices.

Bede and the History

The Easter controversy is a major theme in Bede’s History. He chronicles theconflict from the meetings between Augustine and the British in c.600 toIona’s adoption of the Dionysian table in 716. The History ends with theinformation 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-Saxoncontrol.12 Two of the longest chapters in this work are that of the Synod ofWhitby and the letter from Abbot Ceolfrid to Nechtan.13 Each of theseplays the vital role of explaining the problems with the Celtic-84 andVictorian tables and why the Dionysian alone should be used.

Although the history of the Easter controversy was important to Bede, itis a topic that both helped and hindered his narrative goals. He could easilycondemn the British who stubbornly refused to adopt Roman practices andwho, he believed, had refused to convert the Anglo-Saxons. However, it wasanother 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

Conclusion 171

1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 171

a warning to and condemnation of the churchmen of his own day. In theHistory, he could create idealized monk-bishops who were humble and trueto their pastoral calling. The problem was that these early bishops andmonks from Iona all used the Celtic-84, something he could not support.He needed to both promote their virtues and explain their failings. Bede didthis in part by telling the reader that Iona was so isolated—on the world’sedge—these holy men were unaware of the correct table. For Aidan, hestates that either the bishop was unaware of the problem or could notchange due to “public opinion.”14 He also clarifies that those who used theCeltic-84 were not Quartodecimans. As part of this, he also altered PopeHonorius’ letter eliminating the pope’s specific accusation of this heresy.15

While discussing the foundation of Iona in 565, Bede interrupts thechronological 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 atime Iona was in error, it had since rejoined the Catholic fold. Using thesedifferent approaches Bede could condemn the use of the Celtic-84 and stillpresent men like Aidan as wonderful pastoral models.

Tonsure

As the Easter controversy continued, the tonsure came to be seen as a veryvisible sign of allegiance to either the Celtic or Roman party. There appearsto have been no conflict over the tonsure during the first half of the seventhcentury. Both Columbanus and Bishop Laurence do not mention it in theirletters. The papal letters from Honorius and John are also silent on the mat-ter. The very fact that Jonas did mention the tonsure in the Life ofColumbanus and provided no explanation for this practice is probably theclearest proof that it was not yet a divisive issue.17 On the continent, thosewho supported the Celtic-84 had abandoned this table by 630 and there-fore, no seventh-century documents originating from the continentalChurches mention the tonsure. It is only in the British Isles, where the con-troversy continued throughout the seventh and into the eighth century, thatthe tonsure came to symbolize adherence to a specific method of calculatingEaster.18

Bede hints that the tonsure may have been an issue of dispute by the660s as he states that it was one of the reasons the Synod of Whitby wascalled. However, when he presents the arguments at Whitby, he does notinclude those against the tonsure.19 The earliest reference to the Celtic tonsureas that of Simon Magus comes from Aldhelm writing in the 670s. Thissame theme is found in Ceolfrid’s letter to Nechtan in c.712.20 The Collectio


1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 172

Canonum Hibernensis also equates the British tonsure with this heretic.21

Since much of the information in the Hibernensis cannot be specificallydated, it is impossible to know when these accusations arose in Ireland.These statements are attributed to the “Romans” so it can be assumed thatit was during the midst of the Easter controversy in the seventh century.

It is difficult to construct the Celtic side of this argument. Ceolfrid statesin his letter that Adomnán admitted to knowing that he wore the tonsure ofSimon Magus, explained that this was the traditional style in Ireland, andassured Ceolfrid of his condemnation of simony.22 However, it is impossibleto believe that those who used the Celtic tonsure truly thought it was thatof Simon Magus. It can be assumed that they would have defendedtheir tonsure as a well-established tradition and denied any link to thearch-heretic.

Concepts of Authority

Throughout the Easter controversy, each side had to appeal to a number ofdifferent authorities to justify their table. As far as can be reconstructed,both sides appealed to the Scriptures, Apostolic tradition, the Churchfathers, and synodical decrees. They also recognized the symbolic need forthe moon cycle to correlate to correct teaching.

For those supporting the adoption of the Roman table, the example ofRome could also be cited, though this was usually done within an appeal tothe wider church. For instance, Cummian claimed that the whole Churchfollowed the rules established at Nicaea. This was proven by the fact thatwhen the Irish delegation was in Rome, they had talked to a “Greek, aHebrew, a Scythian and an Egyptian” who each testified that all thechurches of the world used the same dating for Easter.23 In addition, at theSynod of Whitby, Wilfrid claimed that the Dionysian calculations wereobserved not only in Rome, but also in Italy, Gaul, Africa, Asia, Egypt, andGreece.24 Even Popes Honorius and John emphasized that those who sup-ported celebrating Easter on luna 14 did so in violation of the traditions ofthe whole Church and the rulings of Nicaea.25

Irishmen on both sides of the controversy also appealed to Irish author-ities for support. Columbanus argued that the Victorian table had beenrejected by Irish scholars.26 Colmán claimed that Columba and his succes-sors were too godly to have ever used a table that was incorrect. Due to thishe 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 theRoman table and adds that their saintly predecessors used the eighty-four

Conclusion 173

1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 173

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

Synods

When the Easter controversy arose, those in Merovingian Gaul, Anglo-SaxonEngland, and Ireland met in regional councils to debate the issue.29 Thoughthere is no specific evidence, it is possible that Nechtan, like Oswiu beforehim, used a church council as the medium through which to adopt Romantraditions in Pictland. It has been suggested that Elfoddw, who may havebeen bishop of Gwynedd, might have called a church council in 768 todiscuss Easter as well.30

It appears that there were some differences in the composition andauthority of councils in each region. In Anglo-Saxon England, Bede relatesthat it was only through the auspices of King Æthelfrith that Augustine wasable to meet with the British bishops, but there is no sense in which hedirected the meeting. At Whitby, King Oswiu played a prominent role; pos-sibly calling the synod and being the one who made the decision that hiskingdom would use the Dionysian table. In contrast, there appears to havebeen no royal involvement in the Council of Hertford called by Theodorein 673. However, this can be explained by the fact that Churchmen fromthroughout Anglo-Saxon England attended Hertford and thus it involvedmultiple kingdoms.31

In addition, bishops were the main participants in ecclesiastical synods,although others were at times present. Bede claims that at Whitby alongwith Bishops Agilbert and Colmán, there were James the deacon, Hild,abbess of Whitby, Wilfrid, and other priests. He also reports that at theCouncil of Hertford there were “teachers.” Though the names of thebishops who attended Hertford were preserved, the scholars do not appearto have signed the synodical documents. It is difficult to know what role, ifany the priests, teachers and, in the case of Whitby, abbess and deaconmight have played. While still a priest, Wilfrid did present the Roman argu-ments at Whitby, but this was only because Bishop Agilbert requested thathe do so.

In Merovingian Gaul, synods were usually comprised of bishops.32 It wasnot until the Carolingian Church that abbots regularly participated atchurch councils. At the Synod of Mâcon, in 626/27, the crown was to havebeen represented by the Burgundian maior though he died before the


1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 174

proceedings began. While Columbanus gives no hint of royal interest in theCouncil of Chalon, Theuderic and Brunhild had arranged for the bishopsto meet in order to exile Desiderius of Vienne.33 There are also records ofmany church councils throughout the seventh and early eighth centuriesthat testify that royal involvement was the norm.

In Ireland, kings appear to have participated at ecclesiastical synods onlywhen a cáin or law was to be issued, such at that at Birr in 697, wherethe recognition of secular authority was needed for implementation. While thecanons discuss synods at the provincial level that may equate withthe greater kingdoms, kings did not claim the same type of authority as didOswiu at Whitby. This seems to have been especially true when matters ofecclesiastical discipline were the focus.34

In Ireland, church councils were comprised of those holding the highestecclesiastical status. This included not only bishops, but scholars,anchorites, and the heads of the major churches.35 Since abbots were oftenthe leaders of important churches and familiae, they attended councils asrepresentatives of these ecclesiastical networks.36 When the Easter contro-versy was not resolved in the 630s, it appears that the Church beganmeeting 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 groupswould have been comprised of bishops, abbots, and scholars.

As for the British Church, when discussing the meetings betweenAugustine and the British bishops, Bede mentions the presence of scholarsfrom the monastery of Bangor-is-Coed, but provides no information ontheir role at the meeting.37 Therefore it is difficult to determine if theirstanding mirrored that in the Irish Church or whether it was closer to theAnglo-Saxon model where scholars attended councils but did not sign thedecrees. It is also interesting to note that while the British churchmen con-sulted a hermit, Bede implies that this man did not actually attend themeetings with Augustine. This would seem to differ from the Irish Churchwhere anchorites did attend church councils. There also is no indicationthat abbots were present at these meetings.

Outside of the History there are no surviving records of any synods fromthe early seventh to mid-eighth century and saints’ Lives do not provideinformation on the composition of synods in British kingdoms. It is notknown if kings called or attended church councils. Also unclear is whetheror not abbots headed parochiae equivalent to the paruchiae in Ireland. InWelsh sources, these areas of jurisdiction usually are associated withbishops.38 Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether abbots attendedecclesiastical synods in Britain, though initial evidence would seem to pointin the negative.39

Conclusion 175

1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 175

Papal Authority

The conflict over Easter also evidences attitudes toward papal authority. TheIrish honored the position of the pope as heir to Peter and recognizedthe role of the papacy as a court of appeals when agreement could not bereached at the local level. Columbanus wrote to the papacy for support inthe Easter controversy and advice for dealing with the Gallic bishops. Theletter from Pope John in 640 indicates that a regional council had consultedthe papacy on the Easter question and while Cummian’s letter does notspecify 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 denialof papal authority. It was not unheard of in the seventh century for papaladvice and decrees to be ignored. For instance, Pope Gregory continuallywrote to the Merovingian secular and ecclesiastical leadership to call acouncil to deal with the problem of simony, but this was not done.40 InAnglo-Saxon England, King Ecgfrith and by implication ArchbishopTheodore, ignored a papal ruling to restore Wilfrid to his see. However, thisis complicated by Stephanus’ information that the king accused Wilfrid ofobtaining the decree through bribery and thus it was invalid.41

Similar to other parts of the Western Church, Columbanus believed thatRome was the font of true doctrine.42 Due to this, he was concerned thatif the pope had fallen into error over the Three Chapters, it would infectthe whole of the Church. If the pope was supporting heretics it was theobligation of his subordinates to call him to task. It is important to remem-ber that in response to the Three Chapters controversy, some of thechurches in northern Italy and North Africa had broken communion withthe papacy.43

Summary

Throughout the Easter controversy, all sides were appealing to a number ofdifferent authorities: the Scriptures, the Church fathers, and synodicaldecrees. Each side warned the other not to be so prideful as to dismiss theseauthorities and to humbly submit to the truth. The arguments presented atsynods and through the surviving letters prove that both sides upheld thesymbolism inherent with Easter calculation and the idea that by violatingthese precepts, their opponents had become heretics and placed their verysalvation in doubt. Though supporters of the Celtic-84 andVictorian/Dionysian tables attended local synods, if an agreement couldnot be reached or if a king was not present to enforce the decision, delegations


1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 176

were sent to Rome for judgment. Those, like Cummian, who already haddecided that the Roman Easter table was correct, upheld the reports ofthose who had visited Rome or the papal letters as one more piece ofevidence that their opponents should acknowledge. For many who had notbeen persuaded by the arguments to abandon the Celtic-84, Rome’s judg-ment in this matter was not enough to change their minds: the Scriptures,Anatolius, and Jerome had spoken. It can be assumed that those whoremained undecided would have been most influenced by the reports fromRome.

Thus all sides in the Easter controversy appealed to similar authoritieswhile trying to persuade their opponents of the value of their ideas. In addi-tion, it appears that the Irish and British Churches used much the sameapproach to dissent as did their compatriots in Anglo-Saxon England andthe Continent: discussion followed by synods and then if needed delega-tions to Rome. The only major difference may have been the presence orlack thereof of kings or abbots at the proceedings.

Penitentials and Peregrinatio

During the midst of the Easter controversy, the Celtic penitentials began toinfluence the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish Churches. In the past, someargued that the Celts were the first to conceive of private penance and thatthey introduced this idea to the Continent. Scholars currently point outthat the concept of private penance was already present in much of theChurch by the sixth century and that throughout the early Middle Ages acombination of different types of penance remained the norm.44 Whilescholars debate if and in what ways the Celtic tradition may have popular-ized private penance, the Irish and the British penitentials were a criticalpiece in the developing doctrines of repentance and purgatory.45

The surviving evidence demonstrates that the British and then Irishchurchmen began creating penitentials in the mid-sixth century that by theseventh were becoming increasingly complex. Columbanus’ Penitential, forinstance, includes sections for monks, clerics, and the laity. By the eighthcentury, penitentials were also being produced in Anglo-Saxon England andon the Continent. However, the survival of eighth through eleventh-centurycopies of Irish penitentials attests to their continuing use alongside newerexamples.46

Although the concept of life as a pilgrimage toward God was presentthroughout Christian literature in this period, the “exile for God” seems tohave been uniquely emphasized in the Celtic tradition. British peregrini may

Conclusion 177

1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 177

have traveled to Cornwall, Brittany, and present-day southern Scotland andIreland. The fact that there were some monastic communities identified asBritish in seventh-century Ireland points to continuing links.47 In addition,Irish ecclesiastics like Columbanus, Columba, and Fursey, along withothers such as Dícuill, Killian, and Virgil, journeyed to Britain and theContinent from the sixth century onwards.48

The Franks and Anglo-Saxons appear to have been inspired by the Irishperegrini.49 For instance, Amandus, who was from Aquitaine, was involvedin missions in Ghent and the area around Maastricht from the late 620suntil his death in c.675. His Life clearly portrays him as a peregrinus proChristo.50 Emmeran (d. c.690) and Corbinian (d. 730), also both Franks,traveled to Bavaria where they became bishops.51 These men settled in areasthat were officially Christian, but probably were active in a combination ofmissions and pastoral care.

As mentioned, Egbert (d. 729), an Anglo-Saxon peregrinus, was identi-fied by Bede as the person who convinced Iona to abandon the Celtic-84.52

However, he also inspired a number of followers to undertake missionaryjourneys to the Continent. For example, he sent Willibrord (d. 739), aNorthumbrian living in Ireland, to Frisia in 690.53 Willibrord gained thesupport of the Austrasian maior Pippin II and traveled to Rome for permis-sion to preach. Eventually, he became Archbishop of the Frisians with hissee at Utrecht.54

It should be mentioned that it is difficult to determine whether all thosewho undertook missions or traveled for study in the seventh or eighth cen-tury should be identified as peregrini. In addition, missionary impulses fromother sectors might also have influenced the churchmen of the day.However, technically peregrini or not, it is probable that the Irish focus onperegrinatio pro Christo was one element in the mixture which inspired themissionary efforts of the seventh and eighth centuries.55

The Celtic Tradition

It is appropriate to end this study with a short discussion of whether theIrish and British would have recognized themselves as belonging to aseparate micro-Christendom within the totality of the Church. Certainlythere is no mention of the “Celtic tradition” by this name in the earlymedieval documents, but lack of a specific term should not alone rule outthis 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 brethrenin the West.” Soon after this he adds that “all the churches of the entire West


1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 178

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 twentiethmoon lest they should hold a sacrament of the New Testament withoutauthority of the Old.”56 He also asks the bishops at Chalon to pray for himfor “we are all joint members of one body, whether Franks, Britons or Irishor whatever our race may be.”57

In his letter, Cummian cautions Ségéne against arguing that only “theIrish 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 endof 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 itcame to the Easter controversy from 590 to 630, the Irish were aware thatthe British used the Celtic-84 table as well.

It has also been shown that there were very close ties between the Britishand Irish Churches in the fifth through the early seventh centuries.St. Patrick ministered to some of the Irish and it has been argued that atleast portions of the late-fifth- and sixth-century Church were under theauthority of British synods.60 There were also many British peregrini whotraveled to Ireland and established monastic foundations before the end ofthe sixth century. A handful of these communities were still identified asBritish into the seventh.61 Columbanus’ Penitential clearly shows the influ-ence of both Gildas and Finnian. He also specifically mentions both of thesemen by name in his letter to Pope Gregory.

While there is some recognition of a shared tradition in c.600, it seemsthat this was less the case by the early eighth century.62 There were undoubt-edly British clerics and monks in Ireland, though the existence of Anglo-Saxon communities should be noted as well. Some of the hagiographyproduced from the seventh through eleventh centuries does highlight sup-posed interactions between fifth- and sixth-century British and Irish saints.63

However, this does not necessarily demonstrate that the Welsh and Irishbelieved they belonged to a separate and identifiable Christian tradition inthis later period. First, the fact that British churchmen are mentioned in theearly Irish saints’ Lives may simply reflect the fact that there were Britonsactive in the Irish Church of the fifth through seventh centuries, rather thana sense of shared identity with the British Church of the early eighth. By thetime that the later Lives were written the cults of many Irish and Welsh saintshad become quite popular. An author could only bolster the claims of sanc-tity for his subject by demonstrating ties to Patrick, Samson, or David. Inaddition, it is also important to remember that these later Lives often reflectthe political maneuvering of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.64

Whatever sense of unity existed between the Irish and British Churchesin the early seventh century was probably fractured by the Easter controversy.65

Conclusion 179

1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 179

The Collectio Canonum Hibernensis is clear that cases were not to beforwarded to Jews, heretics, or the British.66 It also states that the Britishtonsure was that of Simon Magus.67 Therefore to the compilers of theHibernensis the British were the “other” on a par with Jews and heretics.Anglo-Saxon sources provide the information that some of the British werenot willing to associate with those who used the Roman table.68 It is hard tohave a shared identity when each side refuses to associate with the other. Bythe time that the Welsh finally abandoned the Celtic-84 table, linksbetween the two traditions may have been very badly damaged.

When it comes to historians identifying a Celtic micro-Christendom interms of practices, things are also somewhat uncertain. In c.600, the Celtictradition was identifiably different in its use of the Celtic-84, the Celtic ton-sure, the use of penitentials, and its emphasis on undertaking an exile forChrist. By 768, these specific distinctives either had been abandoned oradopted in some sense by the wider Church. This makes it much moredifficult to identify practices shared in common by the Irish and Welsh butnot the rest of the Church. In addition, while historians used to argue thatthe Churches in the Celtic-speaking lands shared a unique ecclesiasticalorganization dominated by abbots and monastic paruchiae, this appears tobe incorrect. A reassessment of both the Irish and Welsh Churches hasshown that the monastic language is often misleading and in fact both wereprobably closer to their Continental counterparts than was previouslybelieved. Additional research is needed to determine whether Irish andBritish have any shared characteristics that set them apart in this area.

What can be said with certainty is that the popular notions of the CelticChurch bear little resemblance with the reality of the early medieval Irishand British Churches. Churches were led not by simple abbots untouchedby politics or power. Instead, the ecclesiastical leadership, episcopal andmonastic, was closely tied to the kings and aristocracy. In Ireland, wherebishops and abbots controlled large ecclesiastical territories and federationsof churches, they were intrinsically bound into the power structure.

Penitential documents show that the Irish and British did not considerhumanity as inherently good.69 In fact, all penitential writers emphasizedthe constant need for repentance and diligence in guarding against furthersin. The secular and ecclesiastical law codes demonstrate that the Celts didnot reject Church hierarchy. They had tiers of episcopal grades, respectedRome, and upheld and affirmed the major decisions of the ecumenicalcouncils. The Easter controversy also reveals that the Irish and Britishrecognized the importance of correct doctrines and that Easter was not“simply” a matter of practices where diversity was not only tolerated butalso celebrated. Added to this, the Celts were not inherently more spiritualthan the rest of Europe, locked away in dream-like visions separated from


1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 180

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

Conclusion 181

1403972990ts11.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 181

Appendix 1: Easter Dates

1403972990ts12.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 182

Appen

dix183

AD year Celtic-84 Victorian Table Dionysian Table

Table year Easter luna luna 14 Table year Easter luna luna 14 Table year Easter luna luna 14

590 69 26M 17 23M 31 26M or 2A 15 or 22 25M 59 26M 15 25M591 70 15A 18 11A 32 15A 16 13A 60 15A 16 13A592 71 30M 14 30M 33 6A 18 2A 61 6A 18 2A593 72 19A 16 17A 34 29M 21 22M 62 29M 21 22M594 73 11A 18 7A 35 11 or 18A 15 or 22 10A 63 11A 15 10A595 74 27M 14 27M 36 3A 19 29M 64 3A 18 30M596 75 15A 14 15A 37 22A 19 17A 65 22A 18 18A597 76 7A 17 4A 38 7 or 14A 15 or 22 6A 66 14A 21 7A598 77 30M 20 24M 39 30M 18 26M 67 30M 17 27M599 78 12A 14 12A 40 19A 19 14A 68 19A 18 15A600 79 3A 16 1A 41 10A 21 3A 69 10A 20 4A601 80 26M 19 21M 42 26M 17 23M 70 26M 16 24M602 81 15A 20 9A 43 15A 18 11A 71 15A 17 12A603 82 31M 16 29M 44 7A 21 31M 72 7A 20 1A604 83 19A 17 16A 45 22M 16 20M 73 22M 15 21M605 84 11A 19 6A 46 11A 17 8A 74 11A 16 9A606 1 27M 16 25M 47 3A 20 28M 75 3A 19 29M607 2 16A 17 13A 48 23A 21 16A 76 23A 20 17A608 3 7A 19 2A 49 7A 16 5A 77 7A 16 5A609 4 20A 14 20A 50 30M 19 25M 78 30M 19 25M610 5 12A 16 10A 51 19A 20 13A 79 19A 20 13A611 6 4A 19 30M 52 4A 16 2A 80 4A 16 2A

Continued

1403972990ts12.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 183

Th

e Celtic an

d Rom

an Tradition

s184AD year Celtic-84 Victorian Table Dionysian Table


612 7 23A 20 17A 53 26M 18 22M 81 26M 18 22M613 8 8A 15 7A 54 15A 19 10A 82 15A 19 10A614 9 31M 18 27A 55 31M 16 29M 83 31M 15 30M615 10 20A 19 15A 56 20A 17 17A 84 20A 16 18A616 11 4A 14 4A 57 11A 19 6A 85 11A 18 7A617 12 27M 17 24M 58 27M or 3A 15 or 22 26M 86 3A 21 27M618 13 16A 18 12A 59 16A 16 14A 87 16A 15 15A619 14 1A 14 1A 60 8A 19 3A 88 8A 18 4A620 15 20A 16 18A 61 30M 21 23A 89 30M 20 24M621 16 12A 18 8A 62 12 or 19A 15 or 22 11A 90 19A 21 12A622 17 28M 14 28M 63 4A 18 31M 91 4A 17 1A623 18 17A 16 15A 64 27M 21 20M 92 27M 20 21M624 19 8A 17 5A 65 15A 21 8A 93 15A 20 9A625 20 31M 20 25M 66 31M 17 28M 94 31M 16 29M626 21 13A 14 13A 67 20A 18 16A 95 20A 17 17A627 22 5A 17 2A 68 12A 21 5A 1 12A 21 5A628 23 27M 19 22M 69 27M 16 25M 2 27M 16 25M629 24 16A 20 10A 70 16A 17 13A 3 16A 17 13A630 25 1A 16 30M 71 8A 20 2A 4 8A 20 2A631 26 21A 18 17A 72 24M 16 22M 5 24M 16 22M632 27 12A 19 7A 73 12A 16 10A 6 12A 16 10A633 28 28M 15 27M 74 4A 20 29M 7 4A 19 30M634 29 17A 17 14A 75 24A 21 17A 8 24A 20 18A

1403972990ts12.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 184

Appen

dix185

635 30 9A 20 3A 76 9A 17 6A 9 9A 16 7A636 31 21A 14 21A 77 31M 19 26M 10 31M 18 27M637 32 13A 16 11A 78 20A 20 14A 11 20A 19 15A638 33 5A 19 31M 79 5A 16 3A 12 5A 15 4A639 34 18A 14 18A 80 28M 19 23M 13 28M 18 24M640 35 9A 15 8A 81 16A 19 11A 14 16A 18 12A641 36 1A 18 28M 82 1 or 8A 15 or 22 31M 15 8A 21 1A642 37 21A 20 15A 83 24M 18 20M 16 24M 17 21M643 38 6A 15 5A 84 13A 20 7A 17 13A 18 9A644 39 28M 17 25M 85 4A 21 28M 18 4A 20 29M645 40 17A 18 13A 86 17 or 24A 15 or 22 16A 19 24A 21 17A646 41 2A 14 2A 87 9A 18 5A 20 9A 18 5A647 42 22A 16 20A 88 1A 21 25M 21 1A 21 25M648 43 13A 18 9A 89 20A 21 13A 22 20A 21 13A649 44 29M 14 29M 90 5A 17 2A 23 5A 17 2A650 45 18A 16 16A 91 28M 20 22M 24 28M 20 22M651 46 10A 18 6A 92 17A 21 10A 25 17A 21 10A652 47 1A 20 26M 93 1A 17 29M 26 1A 16 30M653 48 14A 14 14A 94 21A 18 17A 27 21A 17 18A654 49 6A 17 3A 95 13A 21 6A 28 13A 20 7A655 50 29M 20 23M 96 29M 17 26M 29 29M 16 27M656 51 17A 20 11A 97 17A 17 14A 30 17A 16 15A657 52 2A 16 31M 98 9A 20 3A 31 9A 19 4A658 53 22A 18 18A 99 25M 14 23M 32 25M 15 24M659 54 14A 20 8A 100 14A 17 11A 33 14A 16 12A660 55 29M 15 28M 101 5A 19 31M 34 5A 18 1A

Continued

1403972990ts12.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 185

Th

e Celtic an

d Rom

an Tradition



661 56 18A 17 15A 102 28M 22 20M 35 28M 21 21M662 57 10A 20 4A 103 10A 14 8A 36 10A 15 9A663 58 26M 16 24M 104 2A 19 28M 37 2A 18 29M664 59 14A 16 12A 105 21A 19 16A 38 21A 18 17A665 60 6A 19 1A 106 6 or 13A 15 or 22 5A 39 6A 15 5A666 61 19A 14 19A 40 29M 18 25M667 62 11A 16 9A 41 18A 19 13A668 63 2A 18 29M 42 9A 21 2A669 64 22A 20 16A 43 25M 17 22M670 65 7A 15 6A 44 14A 18 10A671 66 30M 18 26M 45 6A 21 30M672 67 18A 18 14A 46 25A 21 18A673 68 3A 14 3A 47 10A 17 7A674 69 26M 17 23M 48 2A 20 27M675 70 15A 18 11A 49 22A 21 15A676 71 30M 14 30M 50 6A 16 4A677 72 19A 16 17A 51 29M 19 24M678 73 11A 18 7A 52 18A 20 12A679 74 27M 14 27M 53 3A 16 1A680 75 15A 14 15A 54 25M 18 21M681 76 7A 17 4A 55 14A 19 9A682 77 30M 20 24M 56 30M 15 29M683 78 12A 14 12A 57 19A 16 17A

1403972990ts12.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 186

Appen

dix187

684 79 3A 16 1A 58 10A 19 5A685 80 26M 19 21M 59 26M 15 25M686 81 15A 20 9A 60 15A 16 13A687 82 31M 16 29M 61 7A 19 2A688 83 19A 17 16A 62 29M 21 22M689 84 11A 19 6A 63 11A 15 10A690 1 27M 16 25M 64 3A 18 30M691 2 16A 17 13A 65 23A 19 18A692 3 7A 19 2A 66 14A 21 7A693 4 20A 14 20A 67 30M 17 27M694 5 12A 16 10A 68 19A 18 15A695 6 4A 19 30M 69 11A 21 4A696 7 23A 20 17A 70 26M 16 24M697 8 8A 15 7A 71 15A 17 12A698 9 31M 18 27A 72 7A 20 1A699 10 20A 19 15A 73 23M 16 21M700 11 4A 14 4A 74 11A 16 9A701 12 27M 17 24M 75 3A 19 29M702 13 16A 18 12A 76 23A 20 17A703 14 1A 14 1A 77 8A 17 5A704 15 20A 16 18A 78 30M 19 25M705 16 12A 18 8A 79 19A 20 13A706 17 28M 14 28M 80 4A 16 2A707 18 17A 16 15A 81 27M 19 22M708 19 8A 17 5A 82 15A 19 10A709 20 31M 20 25M 83 31M 15 30M710 21 13A 14 13A 84 20A 16 18A

Continued

1403972990ts12.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 187

Th

e Celtic an

d Rom

an Tradition



711 22 5A 17 2A 85 12A 19 7A712 23 27M 19 22M 86 3A 21 27M713 24 16A 20 10A 87 16A 15 15A714 25 1A 16 30M 88 8A 18 4A715 26 21A 18 17A 89 31M 21 24M716 27 12A 19 7A 90 19A 21 12A717 28 28M 15 27M 91 4A 17 1A718 29 17A 17 14A 92 27M 20 21M719 30 9A 20 3A 93 16A 21 9A720 31 21A 14 21A 94 31M 16 29M721 32 13A 16 11A 95 20A 17 17A722 33 5A 19 31M 1 12A 21 5A723 34 18A 14 18A 2 28M 17 25M724 35 9A 15 8A 3 16A 17 13A725 36 1A 18 28M 4 8A 20 2A726 37 21A 20 15A 5 24M 16 22M727 38 6A 15 5A 6 13A 17 10A728 39 28M 17 25M 7 4A 19 30M729 40 17A 18 13A 8 24A 20 18A730 41 2A 14 2A 9 9A 16 7A731 42 22A 16 20A 10 1A 19 27M732 43 13A 18 9A 11 20A 19 15A733 44 29M 14 29M 12 5A 15 4A

1403972990ts12.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 188

Appen

dix189

734 45 18A 16 16A 13 28M 18 24M735 46 10A 18 6A 14 17A 19 12A736 47 1A 20 26M 15 8A 21 1A737 48 14A 14 14A 16 24M 17 21M738 49 6A 17 3A 17 13A 18 9A739 50 29M 20 23M 18 5A 21 29M740 51 17A 20 11A 19 24A 21 17A741 52 2A 16 31M 20 9A 18 5A742 53 22A 18 8A 21 1A 21 25M743 54 14A 20 8A 22 14A 15 13A744 55 29M 15 28M 23 5A 17 2A745 56 18A 17 15A 24 28M 20 22M746 57 10A 20 4A 25 17A 21 10A747 58 26M 16 24M 26 2A 17 30M748 59 14A 16 12A 27 21A 17 18A749 60 6A 19 1A 28 13A 20 7A750 61 19A 14 19A 29 29M 16 27M751 62 11A 16 9A 30 18A 17 15A752 63 2A 18 29M 31 9A 19 4A753 64 22A 20 16A 32 25M 15 24M754 65 7A 15 6A 33 14A 16 12A755 66 30M 18 26M 34 6A 19 1A756 67 18A 18 14A 35 28M 21 21M757 68 3A 14 3A 36 10A 15 9A758 69 26M 17 23M 37 2A 18 29M759 70 15A 18 11A 38 22A 19 17A760 71 30M 14 30M 39 6A 15 5A

Continued

1403972990ts12.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 189

Th

e Celtic an

d Rom

an Tradition

s190

761 72 19A 16 17A 40 29M 18 25M762 73 11A 18 7A 41 18A 19 13A763 74 27M 14 27M 42 3A 15 2A764 75 15A 14 15A 43 25M 17 22M765 76 7A 17 4A 44 14A 18 10A766 77 30M 20 24M 45 6A 21 30M767 78 12A 14 12A 46 19A 15 18A768 79 3A 16 1A 47 10A 17 7A769 80 26M 19 21M 48 2A 20 27M770 81 15A 20 9A 49 22A 21 15A771 82 31M 16 29M 50 7A 17 4A772 83 19A 17 16A 51 29M 19 24M773 84 11A 19 6A 52 18A 20 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 DionysiacPaschal 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.

AD year Celtic-84 Victorian Table Dionysian Table


1403972990ts12.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 190

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 theCeltic Saints (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1993); Graydon Snyder, IrishJesus, Roman Jesus (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002).

2. Thomas Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland (Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2000), pp. 241–48; Colmán Etchingham, Church Organisationin Ireland (Maynooth: Laigin Publications, 1999); Colmán Etchingham andCatherine Swift, “Early Irish Church Organisation,” Breifne 9 (2001): 285–312.See also chapter 6.

3. Christina Harrington, Women in a Celtic Church (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2000), pp. 1–19; Gilbert Márkus, “Iona: Monks, Pastors andMissionaries,” in Spes Scotorum: Hope of the Scots, edited by Dauvit Brounand Thomas Clancy (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), pp. 115–38.

4. The idea of local theologies is explored in Thomas O’Loughlin, “ ‘A CelticTheology’: 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 Riseof Western Christendom, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), esp. pp. 355–79.

5. O’Loughlin identifies three versions of the “distinction equals opposition” theoryand 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 sum-mary 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 “CelticChristianity” from the Middle Ages to present, see Ian Bradley, Celtic Christianity:Making Myths and Chasing Dreams (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999).

1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 191

7. O’Loughlin, Celtic Theology, pp. 5–6.8. Meek, The Quest, pp. 110–15.9. Ibid., pp. 38–43, 50–57.

10. Patrick Sims-Williams, “The Visionary Celt: The Construction of an EthnicPreconception,” CMCS 11 (1986): 1–35.

11. Meek, The Quest, p. 50; Sims-Williams, “The Visionary Celt,” p. 72.12. For instance, see Snyder, Irish Jesus, Roman Jesus.13. Meek, The Quest, pp. 238–41.14. Oliver Davies, “Celtic Christianity: Texts and Representations,” in Celts and

Christians, edited by Mark Atherton (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2002),pp. 23–38.

15. Harrington, Women, pp. 9–16.16. For an analysis of modern interpretations of Columba, see Donald Meek,

“Between Faith and Folklore: Twentieth-Century Interpretations and Images ofColumba,” in Broun and Clancy, Spes Scotorum, pp. 253–70.

17. One of the first to clearly argue for this was Wendy Davies, “The Myth of theCeltic Church,” in The Early Church in Wales and the West, edited by NancyEdwards and Alan Lane (Oxford: Oxbow Press, 1992), pp. 12–21.

18. Patrick Sims-Williams, “Celtomania and Celtoscepticism,” CMCS 36 (1998):1–35.

19. See chapter 2.20. For issues on determining the date of the equinox, see Kenneth Harrison,

“Easter Cycles and the Equinox in the British Isles,” ASE 7 (1978): 1–8.21. Duncan Steel, Marking Time: The Epic Quest to Invent the Perfect Calendar

(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000). A more detailed summary of the issuesinvolved is in Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 391–415. See alsoFaith Wallis, Bede: Reckoning of Time (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,2000), pp. xxxiv–lxiii.

22. The Julian calendar is associated with the calendar reforms of Julius Caesar. In1582, Pope Gregory XIII ordered calendar reform initiating what is known asthe Gregorian calendar.

23. Steel, Marking Time, p. 159.24. Jane Stevenson, The “Laterculus Malalianus” and the School of Archbishop

Theodore (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 168–69.25. See Luke 1:26–38.26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Dionysius is also known for inventing the AD dating system. Georges Declercq,Anno Domini: The Origins of the Christian Era (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000).

29. Steel, Marking Time, pp. 106–07.30. 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 2–7192

1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 192

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. LikeDionysius, Victorius used the Alexandrian nineteen-year cycle as the basis of histable. However, every nineteen years it is necessary to insert a saltus lunae ormoon’s leap, like a leap year, to advance the age of the moon by one. For anunexplained reason, Victorius placed this after the sixth year rather than thenineteenth. This meant that for years seven to nineteen out of every nineteen-year cycle, the Victorian table listed luna dates one day in advance of those inthe 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 bysome 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 InsularCeltic Churches,” CMCS 28, no. 2 (1994): 25–49.

38. Daniel McCarthy and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “The ‘Lost’ Irish 84-Year Easter TableRediscovered,” Peritia 6–7 (1987/88): 227–42. Corrections to the table can befound in Daniel McCarthy, “Easter Principles and a Fifth-Century Lunar CycleUsed 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 JudithMcClure and Roger Colins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 3.25.

43. World Council of Churches, Aleppo Statement (1997); available fromhttp://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 OldTestament 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.

Notes to Pages 7–10 193

1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 193

52. Throughout this book, the traditional definition of the equinox as a day onwhich there are equal amounts of daylight and darkness will be used, eventhough 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 Willisedition.

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 Shapeof the Insular Tonsure,” Celtica 24 (2003): 140–67; Sayers, “Early IrishAttitudes towards Hair and Beards, Baldness and Tonsure,” Zeitschrift fürceltische Philologie 44 (1991): 154–89. For comparison, a discussion of the ton-sure question in Spain can be found in Alberto Ferreiro, “A Reconsideration ofthe Celtic Tonsure and the Ecclesia Britoniensis in the Hispano Roman-Visigothic Councils,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 23 (1991): 1–10. For abrief overview of symbolism of haircuts in the early medieval period, see SimonCoates, “Scissors or Sword: The Symbolism of a Medieval Haircut,” HistoryToday 49, no. 5 (1999): 7–13.

68. The best known might be the “long-haired” Merovingian kings, but there isevidence 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


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 194

Depravity, Doctrinal Error, and Character Assassination in the Fourth Century:Jerome against the Priscillianists,” Studia Patristica 28 (1993): 29–38.

76. Gregory, History, 1.24, p. 84.77. Bede, HE, 5.21, p. 283. All HE quotes from the McClure and Collins edition.78. James, “Bede,” pp. 96–98.79. See Heb. 6:4–6, James 5:15–16 and 1 Cor. 5 for example.80. 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 andthe Apocalypse in the Middle Ages, edited by Caroline Walker Bynum andPaul Freedman (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000),pp. 41–59, at 41–42.

81. Mayke de Jong, “Transformations of Penance,” in Rituals of Power from LateAntiquity to the Early Middle Ages, edited by Frans Theuws and Janet Nelson(Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 203–05.

82. Thomas O’Loughlin, “Penitentials and Pastoral Care,” in A History of PastoralCare, edited by G. R. Evans (London: Cassell, 2000), pp. 94–95.

83. O’Loughlin, Celtic Theology, pp. 53–54.84. de Jong, “Transformations,” pp. 207–08. There is some disagreement over the

term “private penance.” Although a public ritual was no longer performed, thevery nature of some of the assigned penances, fasting, giving alms, etc., wouldhave brought the sinner to public notice. Meens has argued that the termimplies there was no communal aspect to the act of penance. He instead favorsthe term “secret penance,” though it seems as though this could also lead tounintended assumptions by modern readers. Rob Meens, “Frequency andNature of Early Medieval Penance,” in Handling Sin: Confession in the MiddleAges, edited by Peter Biller and Alastair Minnis (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell &Brewer, 1998), pp. 47–52.

85. 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 adebate among scholars as to whether Finnian was Irish or a British monk whoimmigrated to Ireland. The arguments can be found in Thomas Charles-Edwards,“Britons in Ireland, c.550–800,” in Ildánach Ildírech, edited by John Carey, JohnKoch, 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: GeographyPublications, 1997), pp. 71–84; Pádraig Ó Riain, “Finnio and Winniau: A Returnto the Subject,” in Carey et al., Ildánach Ildírech, pp. 188–201.

86. 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.

87. For a collection of early medieval penitentials, see McNeill and Gamer,Medieval Handbooks of Penance.

88. O’Loughlin, “Penitentials,” pp. 97–104.89. For a short summary of the surviving early penitentials, see Hugh Connolly,

The Irish Penitentials (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1995), pp. 30–36.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 195

90. Richard Price, “Informal Penance in Early Medieval Christendom,” inRetribution, Repentance, and Reconciliation, edited by Kate Cooper and JeremyGregory (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 inAnglo-Saxon England, see Brad Bedingfield, “Public Penance in Anglo-SaxonEngland,” 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 ElisabethVan 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 LindaEllis 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,” inThe 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 (NewYork: 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 hismain 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 pref-ace 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.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 196

Chapter 2

1. Jonas, Vitae Columbani abbatis discipulorumque eius, vol. 4, edited by BrunoKrusch, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum inusum scholarum, 37 abbatis discipulorumque (Hannover: Impensis BibliopoliiHahniani, 1905) pp. 1–294. There is no translation in English of the entirety ofJonas’ Life of Columbanus. For an English translation of book 1, see Jonas, Life ofSt. Columbanus, in Monks, Bishops and Pagans: Christian Culture in Gaul and Italy,500–700, edited by Edward Peters (Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 1975), pp. 75–113. For general information on Jonas’ Life of Columbanus,see Clare Stancliffe, “Jonas’ Life of Columbanus and His Disciples,” in Studies inIrish 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, fromThe Life of St. Columbanus,” in Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology, edited byThomas Head (New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 111–35, at 111–16.

2. For an excellent summary of the goals and types of hagiographical writing, seeThomas 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 theGreat (c.600), see Robert Stanton, “Columbanus, Letter 1: Translation andCommentary,” JML 3 (1993): 149–68. Unless otherwise noted, all quotationsto Epistle 1 will be from Stanton and quotations from Epistles 2 to 5 are fromWalker.

4. David Howlett, “Two Works of Saint Columban,” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch28 (1993): 27–46; Neil Wright, “Columbanus’s Epistulae,” in Columbanus:Studies on the Latin Writings, edited by Michael Lapidge (Woodbridge: BoydellPress, 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’sEpistulae,” pp. 60–87.

7. For more information, see Michael Lapidge, Columbanus: Studies on the LatinWritings (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1997).

8. For additional information on Gregory, see Martin Heinzelmann, Gregory ofTours: History and Society in the Sixth Century (Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2001); Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood, eds., The World ofGregory 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. OldenbourgVerlag, 1994), pp. 359–66, at 359–60.

11. See also chapters 3.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 197

12. A more detailed summary can be found in Donald A. Bullough, “The Career ofColumbanus,” in Lapidge, Columbanus pp. 1–28.

13. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.3–4; English translation 9–11.14. Ibid., 1.6; English translation 1215. 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, astron-

omy, grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic. We can understand the greatness of histalent from a volume which he composed, On the Pasch, and from ten books,An Introduction to Arithmetic.” Jerome, On Illustrious Men, translated byThomas 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 CourtsPress, 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 fromreality for every sixty-three years. The beginning of the third cycle meant that theCeltic-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.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 198

43. Ibid., 2.5, 3.2.44. Bracken, “Authority,” pp. 170–73.45. Ibid., 181–82.46. J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983),

pp. 110–11.47. Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (London: Fontana Press, 1987),

pp. 162–68.48. Summaries of this controversy can be found in Ibid., pp. 119–27; R. A.

Markus, Gregory the Great and His World (Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997), pp. 125–42.

49. Simply stated, Nestorius emphasized the distinction of the two natures ofChrist, rather than the Chalcedon definition of unconfused union.

50. Patrick Gray and Michael Herren, “Columbanus and the Three ChaptersControversy—A New Approach,” JTS ns 45, no. 1 (1994): 160–70, at 160–64.

51. Markus, Gregory, pp. 128–39, 173–74. See also Robert Eno, “Papal DamageControl in the Aftermath of the Three Chapters Controversy,” Studia Patristica19 (1989): 52–56.

52. 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.

53. Bracken, “Authority,” p. 169.54. Ralph Mathisen, “Syagrius of Autun, Virgilius of Arles, and Gregory of Rome:

Factionalism, Forgery, and Local Authority at the End of the Sixth Century,” inL’Église et la mission au VIe siècle, edited by Christophe de Dreuille (Paris: LesÉditions du Cerf, 2000), pp. 261–90, at 278–80.

55. Thomas F. X. Noble, “Gregory of Tours and the Roman Church,” in Mitchelland Wood, The World of Gregory of Tours, pp. 145–61.

56. Columbanus, Ep., 5.3, p. 39.57. Bracken, “Authority,” pp. 175–76, and Charles-Edwards, Early Christian

Ireland, pp. 374–75.58. Columbanus’ three letters to the papacy all mention his longing to go to Rome.

Columbanus, Ep., 1.8–9, 3.2, 5.11.59. Ibid., 5.11, p. 49.60. Ibid., 1.8.61. Ibid., 5.5.62. Bracken, “Authority,” pp. 179–87.63. Ibid., pp. 174–75.64. Gray and Herren, “Columbanus,” pp. 164–70.65. Columbanus, Ep., 5.4, 5.7.66. Ibid., 5.9.67. Ibid., 5.10. James P. Mackey, “The Theology of Columbanus,” in Irland und

Europa im früheren Mittelalter, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháin and MichaelRichter (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1996), pp. 228–39, at 234–35.

68. Columbanus, Ep., 5.11–13.69. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, translated by Henry Davis (New York:

Newman Press, 1950), 1.2.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 199

70. There is some disagreement as to the subtlety of Columbanus’ arguments. See,for instance, Bracken, “Authority,” p. 212; Joseph Kelly, “The Letter ofColumbanus 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 theideas of Gregory and Columbanus on papal leadership.

72. For general surveys about the Merovingian kingdoms, see Edward James, TheFranks (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988; reprint, 1991); Ian N. Wood, TheMerovingian 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, editedby Dorothea Siegmund-Schultze (Halle: Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1989), pp. 268–70, at 266–67. See Janet Nelson, “Queens asJezebels: Brunhild and Balthild in Merovingian History,” in Politics and Ritualin 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), arrangedthe 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 Balthildin Merovingian History,” in Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, editedby 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, seeStancliffe, “Jonas’ Life,” pp. 201–19.

79. Ian N. Wood, “Jonas, the Merovingians, and Pope Honorius: Diplomata andthe Vita Columbani,” in After Rome’s Fall: Narrators and Sources of EarlyMedieval History, edited by Alexander Murray (Toronto: University of TorontoPress, 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),


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 200

c. 8. For a French translation of the canons of the early Merovingian Churchcouncils, see Jean Gaudemet and Brigitte Basdevant, trans., Les canons des con-ciles mérovingiens, VI-VII siècles, 2 vols., pp. 353–54, Sources Chrétiennes (Paris:Les Éditions du Cerf, 1989). For additional information on MerovingianChurch councils, see Odette Pontal, Die Synoden im Merowingerreich(Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1986). This work is also available inFrench: Odette Pontal, Histoire des conciles mérovingiens (Paris: Institut derecherche et d’histoire des textes [CNRS], 1989).

89. Translations can be found in Judith W. George, Venantius Fortunatus: A LatinPoet in Merovingian Gaul (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); Judith W. George,Venantius Fortunatus: Personal and Political Poems (Liverpool: LiverpoolUniversity Press, 1995); Raymond Van Dam, Saints and Their Miracles in LateAntique Gaul (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).

90. Brian Brennan, “The Image of the Merovingian Bishops in the Poetry ofVenantius Fortunatus,” JMH 18 (1992): 115–39. See also Simon Coates,“Venantius Fortunatus and the Image of Episcopal Authority in Late Antiqueand Early Merovingian Gaul,” EHR 65 (2000): 1109–37.

91. 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.

92. Ian N. Wood, “Administration, Law and Culture in Merovingian Gaul,” inThe Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe, edited by RosemondMcKitterick (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp.63–81, at 75–77, 80.

93. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, pp. 71–79, 113–35.94. Gregory, History, 1.18.95. Ibid., 8.31.96. Ibid., 10.19.97. Columbanus, Eps., 2.2–3.98. Ibid.; see now also Clare Stancliffe, “Columbanus and the Gallic Bishops,” in

Auctoritas: Mélanges offerts à Olivier Guillot, edited by Giles Constable andMichel Rouche (Paris: Press de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2006), pp. 205–15.Unfortunately, this was published after the manuscript was submitted. I amgrateful to Clare Stancliffe for providing me with a copy of this article.

99. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, 1.2.100. Ibid., 2.2, 2.6.101. Ibid., 1.11. Markus, Gregory, pp. 17–31.102. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, 2.7. Bracken, “Authority,” pp. 202–07.103. Columbanus, Ep., 2.7.104. Ibid., 2.8, p. 21.105. Columbanus, Ep., 2.4.106. Wright analyzes Columbanus’ use of scriptural allusions to further enforce his

innocence and his enemy’s error in persecuting those who humbly followedChrist. Wright, “Columbanus’s Epistulae,” pp. 60–70.

107. The use of this theory in the past is discussed in Barbara H. Rosenwein,Negotiating Space: Power, Restraint, and Privileges of Immunity in Early


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 201

Medieval Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999),pp. 64–66.

108. Wood, “Jonas, the Merovingians,” pp. 113–20.109. Rosenwein, Negotiating Space, pp. 46–47.110. 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.

111. Rosenwein, Negotiating Space, pp. 59–73.112. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 368–72.113. See chapter 3.114. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.19 English translation 33.115. See chapter 3.116. See also Guiseppe Cuscito, “La politica religiosa della corte Longobarda di

fronte allo scisma dei Tre Capitoli,” in Atti del 6 Congresso Internazionale diStudi sull’alto Medioevo (Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro Studi, 1980),pp. 373–81.

117. Columbanus, Ep., 5.118. Ibid., 2.8, p. 23.119. For an English translation, see Columbanus, Penitential, pp. 168–81.120. Thomas Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Columbanus,” in Lapidge,

Columbanus, pp. 235–37.121. Ibid., pp. 218–20.122. For a translation, see Finnian, Penitential, in McNeill and Gamer, Medieval

Handbooks, pp. 86–97.123. Columbanus, Penitential, B. 1–2, 4–9, 11, 13–14, 16, 21–23.124. 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.

125. Thomas Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Theodore and the IudiciaTheodori,” in Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on His Life andInfluence, edited by Michael Lapidge (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1995), pp. 141–74, at 162–70; Michael Driscoll, “Penance inTransition: Popular Piety and Practice,” in Medieval Liturgy, edited by LizetteLarson-Miller (New York: Garland Publishing, 1997), pp. 121–63.

126. Columbanus, Penitential, B. 25.127. Charles-Edwards points out that Columbanus seems to be envisioning a sys-

tem of only two steps rather than the more traditional four. For heretics them-selves, there was a more complex set of public penance required.Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Theodore,” pp. 164–65.

128. See chapter 1.129. 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. 8.130. Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Columbanus,” in Lapidge,

Columbanus, pp. 237–39.131. Mayke de Jong, “Transformations of Penance,” pp. 215–16.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 202

Chapter 3

1. Athala is discussed in Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.1–6. Bertulf is the focus of2.23–25. 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 struc-ture 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 Historyand Merovingian Hagiography,” Past and Present 127 (1990): 3–38.

4. J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar, with ItsContinuations (London, New York: Nelson, 1960). See Ian N. Wood,“Fredegar’s Fables,” in Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, edited by AntonScharer and George Scheibelreiter (München: R. Oldenbourg, 1994),pp. 359–66.

5. For more information, see Walter Goffart, “The Fredegar ProblemReconsidered,” Speculum 38, no. 2 (1963): 206–41; J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, TheLong-Haired Kings (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), pp. 71–94.

6. Canons of the Merovingian Church councils in Latin are contained in ConciliaGalliae A.511–695, edited by C. de Clercq, Corpus Christanorum Series Latina148 A (Turnhout, Belgium, 1963).

7. Codice Diplomatico del Monastero di S. Columbano di Bobbio, vol. 1, edited byCarlo 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 theRhine,” in Columbanus and Merovingian Monasticism, edited by H. B. Clarkeand 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.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 203

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.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 204

58. Ibid., 2.9; Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms, p. 196.59. By 649, the Bishop of Tortona did support the papacy. However there is no evi-

dence 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, heprayed and the wolves did not attack. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 1.9; Englishtranslation 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 CertainFather to the Virgins based on Benedict and Columbanus. Marilyn Dunn,“Mastering Benedict: Monastic Rules and Their Authors in the Early MedievalWest,” 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 aCertain Father to the Virgins, translated by Jo Ann McNamara and JohnHalborg (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.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 205

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 argumentsare 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, LateMerovingian France, pp. 327–29.

94. Fosses: Monasterium Scottorum; Péronne: Peronna Scottorum; Abbot Moinan islisted 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,” inSt. Augustine and the Conversion of England, edited by Richard Gameson(Stroud: Sutton, 1999), pp. 1–49, at 10–14; Stéphane Lebecq, “England andthe 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 (UniversityPark, 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,


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 206

1993), pp. 133–45; Christopher Snyder, The Britons (Malden, MA: BlackwellPublishing, 2003), pp. 116–17.

4. Charles-Edwards, “Britons in Ireland,” pp. 15–17.5. Dumville, “British Missionary Activity,” pp. 140–45.6. 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 ThomasHead (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995),pp. 75–106.

7. E. A. Thompson, Saint Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain(Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1984), pp. 15–19.

8. 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, seeSnyder, The Britons, pp. 122–24.

9. D. R. Howlett, Cambro-Latin Compositions (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998),pp. 33–43; Michael Lapidge, “Gildas’s Education and the Latin Culture of Sub-Roman Britain,” in Gildas: New Approaches, edited by Michael Lapidge andDavid Dumville (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1984), pp. 27–50. NeilWright, “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 (NewYork: Paulist Press, 2005), pp. 141–83.

10. John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2005), pp. 14–19; Mark Handley, “The Origins of ChristianCommemoration in Late Antique Britain,” EME 10, no. 2 (2001): 177–99;Lucas Quensel-von Kablen, “The British Church and the Emergence of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms,” in The Making of Kingdoms, edited by Tania Dickinson andDavid Griffiths (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology,1999), pp. 89–97, at 90–94.

11. See Steven Bassett, “Medieval Ecclesiastical Organisation in the Vicinity ofWroxeter and Its British Antecedents,” Journal of the British ArchaeologicalAssociation 146 (1992): 1–28; Margaret Gelling, The West Midlands in the EarlyMiddle Ages (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1992), pp. 53–71.

12. Gildas, Preface on Penance, in Gildas: The Ruin of Britain and Other Works,edited and translated by Michael Winterbottom (Totowa, NJ: Rowman andLittlefield, 1978), pp. 84–86.

13. 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.

14. 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, MedievalHandbooks, pp. 171–72. Snyder, The Britons, pp. 127–28.

15. For the need to differentiate the different zones of the British Church, see, forexample, Blair, The Church, pp. 10–34; Clare Stancliffe, “The British Church


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 207

and the Mission of Augustine,” in Gameson, St Augustine, pp. 107–51, at115–23.

16. Blair, The Church, pp. 14, 24, 27–28. Clare Stancliffe, “Christianity amongstthe Britons, Dalriadan Irish and Picts,” in The New Cambridge MedievalHistory, vol. 1, edited by Paul Fouracre (Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005), pp. 426–61, at 432–33.

17. For a summary of evidence, see Richard Sharpe, “Martyrs and Local Saints inLate Antique Britain,” in Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early MedievalWest, edited by Alan Thacker and Richard Sharpe (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2002), pp. 75–154.

18. Ibid., pp. 112–18.19. Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, 10.2. Sharpe, “Martyrs,” pp. 118–22.20. 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.

21. Stancliffe, “The British Church,” pp. 119–21.22. Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, 10.2.23. 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.

24. Bede, HE, 5.24.25. 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 Éditionsdu Cerf, 2000), pp. 148–79, at 178–79.

26. Bede, HE, preface, p. 3.27. 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 HistoriaEcclesiastica Gentis Anglorum: Its Contemporary Setting, Jarrow Lecture (Jarrow:St Pauls Church, 1992); Alan Thacker, “Bede’s Ideal of Reform,” in Ideal andReality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society, edited by Patrick Wormald(Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), pp. 130–53.

28. 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.

29. Alan Thacker, “Bede and the Irish,” in Houwen and MacDonald, BedaVenerabilis, pp. 31–59, at 35–38.

30. 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.

31. Wallis, Bede, pp. xxxi–xxxiv, lxiii–lxxi.32. 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’sEcclesiastical History of the English People: A Historical Commentary (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 219–20.

33. Bede, HE, 2.2, p. 72.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 208

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 itdisobeyed or departed from the Law. Bede’s audience would have understoodthe 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 andEve had sinned in the Garden of Eden, the human soul was so corrupt that itwould never voluntarily turn to God. Therefore, God has chosen the souls hewould save, giving them the grace to accept salvation. The more extremefollowers of Pelagian ideas appeared to be denying the need for God’s grace insalvation 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 allowsthe 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 Changein the Early Middle Ages, c. 200–c. 1150 (Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2002).

46. Sarah Foot, “ ‘By Water in the Spirit’: The Administration of Baptism in EarlyAnglo-Saxon England,” in Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, pp. 171–92, at172–74; Sybil McKillop, “A Romano-British Baptismal Liturgy?” in The EarlyChurch in Western Britain and Ireland, edited by Susan Pearce (Oxford: OxfordPublishing Press, 1982), pp. 42–43; Jane Stevenson, “Introduction,” in TheLiturgy 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 theGreat (London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 1994), pp. 130–34. For the GelasianRite, see E. C. Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, revised byMaxwell 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 EnglishIdentity,” 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: LiturgicalPress, 1999), pp. 194–200. However, other historians argue that the British


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 209

would have been unusual in not requiring the episcopal anointing. SeeStevenson, “Introduction,” pp. xxiv, liii; Thomas, Christianity, p. 209, but seep. 213.

52. J. D. C. Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West (London:SPCK, 1965), pp. 47–57, 79; Gabriele Winkler, “Confirmation orChrismation?: 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 BobbioMissal, see Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, pp. 258–63, 265–74,respectively.

53. Foot, “ ‘By Water,’ ” p. 178.54. See chapter 7.55. Foot, “ ‘By Water,’ ” p. 178.56. 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.

57. Steven Bassett, “How the West Was Won: The Anglo-Saxon Takeover of theWest Midlands,” in Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 11, editedby David Griffiths (Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology, 2000),pp. 107–18 at 112–15.

58. Historia Brittonum (henceforth HB), in Nennius: British History and the WelshAnnals, edited by John Morris (London: Phillimore, 1980), pp. 9–43, 50–84.For information on this text, see David Dumville, “Historia Brittonum: AnInsular History from the Carolingian Age,” in Historiographie im frühenMittelalter, edited by Anton Scharer and Georg Scheibelreiter (München:R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994), pp. 406–34.

59. HB, 63.60. Bede, HE, 2.14.61. For a more in-depth analysis of the possible interpretations of this passage, see

Caitlin Corning, “The Baptism of Edwin, King of Northumbria: A NewAnalysis of the British Tradition,” NH 35, no. 1 (2000): 5–15.

62. N. J. Higham, “Imperium in Early Britain: Rhetoric and Reality in the Writingsof Gildas and Bede,” in The Making of the Kingdoms, edited by Tania Dickinsonand David Griffiths, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 10 (Oxford:Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1999), pp. 31–36, at 32–33.

63. Higham, The Convert Kings, p. 109; Stancliffe, “The British Church,”pp. 139–40.

64. 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.

65. Ibid., pp. 226–29, 243–46.66. Bede, HE, 1.32.67. Brooks, “Canterbury and Rome,” pp. 244–46.68. Bede, HE, 1.27.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 210

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 Peoplesand 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 IanN. 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.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 211

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 arefrom the Walsh and Ó Cróinín edition. The identifications of Cummian andBéccán 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 Letterpp. 22–29.

23. It should be noted that Cummian does not specify that this is a canon from theCouncil 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 sur-

vived. 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 ChristianPasch: 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, “TheNorthern Lectionary: A Source for the Codex Salmanticensis?” in CelticHagiography and Saints’ Cults, edited by Jane Cartwright (Cardiff: University ofWales Press, 2003), pp. 148–60, at 148–50; Clare Stancliffe, “Review ofRichard 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 ChristianWexford, AD 400–1066, translated by John Hunt, edited by Edward Culleton(Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999), pp. 114–25.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 212

35. Walsh and Ó Cróinín, Cummian’s Letter, pp. 50–51.36. Life of Fintán, 26.37. Ibid., 27.38. Bede, HE, 2.19.39. Judith McClure and Roger Collins, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the

English People (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994; reprint, 1999),pp. 383–84.

40. Life of Fintán, 27.41. Bede, HE, 2.19, p. 104. There is possibly another phrase from this letter con-

tained 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,” PRIA82C, no. 11 (1982): 405–30, at p. 409.

42. Jones, “The Victorian and Dionysiac,” 413.43. Ó Cróinín, “ ‘New Heresy for Old,’ ” pp. 510–16.44. Bede, HE, 2.19.45. 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 ofthis tradition was the significant influence of Pelagian theology upon its teach-ing and practices. Michael Herrin and Shirley Ann Brown, Christ in CelticChristianity (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002). While there is much of value inthis study, most historians have rejected its central idea that Pelagian theologywas 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 ShirleyAnn Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity,” Peritia 16 (2002): 510–13; ThomasCharles-Edwards, “Review of Michael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ inCeltic Christianity,” EME 13, no. 4 (2005): 428–31; Celia Chazelle, “Review ofMichael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity,” Speculum79, no. 1 (2004): 201–03; Jonathan M. Wooding, “Review of Michael Herrenand Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity,” The Medieval Review(2005): http://name.umdl.umich.edu/baj9928.0509.007.

46. Bede, Reckoning, 6; Bede, HE, 5.21.47. Ó Cróinín, “ ‘New Heresy for Old,’ ” pp. 515–16.48. See chapter 10.

Chapter 6

1. The classical account of this transformation is found in Kathleen Hughes, TheChurch 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 CanonumHibernensis (CCH) can be found in Richter, Ireland, pp. 215–25.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 213

3. Luned Mair Davies, “The ‘mouth of gold’: Gregorian Texts in the CollectioCanonum Hibernensis,” in Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: Text andTransmission, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Dublin:Four Courts Press, 2002), pp. 249–67, at 249–50; Rob Meens, “The OldestManuscript Witness of the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis,” Peritia 14 (2000):1–19. See also Thomas Charles-Edwards, “The Construction of theHibernensis,” Peritia 12 (1998): 209–37.

4. For information on these men, see Bart Jaski, “Cú Chuimne, Ruben and theCompilation of the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis,” Peritia 14 (2000): 53–60.

5. Maurice Sheehy, “Influence of Ancient Irish Law on the Collectio CanonumHibernensis,” in Proceedings of the Third International Congress on MedievalCanon Law, edited by Stephan Kuttner (Vatican City: Biblioteca ApostolicaVaticana, 1971), p. 31.

6. Ludwig Bieler, The Patrician Texts in the Book of Armagh (Dublin: DublinInstitute for Advanced Studies, 1979), pp. 184–91, 62–123, and 123–67,respectively. For information on these texts, see David Dumville, “Muirchu’sLife of St. Patrick from the Book of Armagh,” in Dumville, Saint Patrick,pp. 203–19; Maíre Herbert, “Latin and Vernacular Hagiography of Irelandfrom the Origins to the Sixteenth Century,” in Hagiographics, edited by GuyPhilippart (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), pp. 328–43, at 329–31, 341–42; ClareStancliffe, “The Miracle Stories in Seventh-Century Irish Saints’ Lives,” in LeSeptième 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; KathleenHughes, “Synodus II s. Patricii,” in Latin Script and Letters, edited by JohnO’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 applicablesection is also available in Colmán Etchingham, “Bishops in the Early IrishChurch: 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,” JRSAI117 (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 byPróinséas 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,


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 214

History, and Literature in Honour of Francis J. Byrne, edited by Alfred P. Smyth(Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000), pp. 146–60.

17. Colmán Etchingham, Church Organisation in Ireland (Maynooth: LaiginPublications, 1999), pp. 363–454; Richard Sharpe, “Churches andCommunities in Early Medieval Ireland: Towards a Pastoral Model,” in Blairand Sharpe, Pastoral Care, pp. 81–109, at 102.

18. Charles-Edwards, “The Church,” p. 67.19. Colmán Etchingham, “The Implications of Paruchia,” Eriu 44 (1993):

139–62, at 139–40.20. Ibid., pp. 139–62.21. Ibid., pp. 139–44.22. Etchingham, Church Organisation in Ireland, pp. 106–25; Thomas

Charles-Edwards, “Introduction,” in A New History of Ireland, vol. 1, edited byDáibhí Ó Cróinín (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. lvii–lxxxii, atlxxi–lxxii, lxxiv.

23. Etchingham, Church Organization in Ireland, pp. 126–30.24. Thomas Charles-Edwards, “Érlam: The Patron–Saint of an Irish Church,” in

Thacker and Sharpe, Local Saints, pp. 267–90.25. Etchingham, “Bishops,” pp. 39–41.26. Ibid., pp. 42–45.27. Ibid., pp. 44–46.28. Charles-Edwards, “The Church,” pp. 67–73.29. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 423–26.30. Ibid., pp. 421–29.31. 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 ofthe Cain Adomnáin, 697,” Peritia 1 (1982): 184–96.

32. Etchingham, “Bishops,” p. 44. For an overview of the organizational structuresin the Church, see Clare Stancliffe, “Religion and Society in Ireland,” in TheNew Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 1, edited by Paul Fouracre (Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 397–425, at 417–25.

33. Charles-Edwards, “Introduction,” pp. lxxii–lxxiii.34. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 250–57; Etchingham, Church

Organisation, pp. 223–33.35. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 276–77; Charles-Edwards,

“Introduction,” pp. lxxiv–lxxv.36. Ibid., pp. 271–72.37. Ibid., pp. 264–69.38. Brown, The Rise, pp. 206–14; Herrin, The Formation, pp. 172–73.39. Ó Néill, “Romani Influences,” pp. 280–90.40. In the older theory it was believed that members of the “Celtic Church” saw no

problem with diversity in Easter dating.41. 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,


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 215

pp. 217–25; Michael Richter, “Dating the Irish Synods in the CollectioCanonum Hibernensis,” Peritia 14 (2000): 70–84.

42. Matt. 18:15–17.43. 2 Cor. 6:14–15.44. 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 suggestionson the translation of this and other passages of the Hibernensis.

45. Richter has estimated that there are about 640 statements from patristic sourcesand about 250 from councils and synods. Richter, Ireland, p. 218.

46. The numbers quoted in this section are only approximate since a new editionof the Hibernensis is needed for accurate statistics.

47. Richter, “Dating the Synods,” pp. 70–84.48. Wasserschleben, Die irische Kanonensammlung. Roy Fletcher is preparing a new

edition of the Hibernensis as an Oxford D. Phil thesis, 2006. My thanks toThomas Charles-Edwards for this information.

49. Hughes, The Church, pp. 127–31.50. CCH 18.2.a, 21.2, 28.5.b, 33.4, 35.4.c, 46.29, 66.16.51. CCH 28.5.b.52. CCH 28.10.b.53. CCH 33.4, 33.6.a–d, 33.9, 37.38.54. CCH 52.2–3, 52.6. One manuscript variation discusses an Irish tonsure that

was first worn by a shepherd of King Lóegaire.55. CCH 52.6.a. Translation mine.56. CCH 20.6.57. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, p. 391; Richter, Ireland, p. 222.58. Richard Sharpe, “An Irish Textual Critic and the Carmen Paschale of Sedulius:

Colmán’s Letter to Feradach,” JML 2 (1992): 44–54.59. Ibid., p. 54.60. Martin McNamara, Glossa in Psalmos: The Hiberno-Latin Gloss on the Psalms of

Codex Palatinus Latinus 68, vol. 310, Studie e Testi (Vatican City: BibliotecaApostolica Vaticana, 1986); Ps. 49, 52, and 54.

61. Martin McNamara, “The Bible in Academe and in Ecclesia: Antiochene andEarly Irish Exegesis of Messianic Psalms,” Milltown Studies 39 (1997): 112–29;Pádraig Ó Néill, “Irish Transmission of Late Antique Learning: The Case ofTheodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Psalms,” in Chatháin andRichter, Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 68–77.

62. An exception to this was Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, who supportedthe Antiocene approach to biblical exegesis. See Bernard Bischoff and MichaelLapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore andHadrian (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994), esp. pp.243–49. Though Theodore had Irish students, Richter argues that the histori-cal focus was already present in Irish circles before Theodore’s arrival inEngland. Richter, Ireland, p. 198.

63. McNamara, Glossa in Psalmos, pp. 40–43.64. Martin McNamara, “The Irish Tradition of Biblical Exegesis,” in Iohannes

Scottus Eriugena: The Bible and Hermeneutics, edited by Gerd Van Riel, Carlos


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 216

Steel, and James McEvoy (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), pp. 25–54,at 33–34.

65. 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.

66. McNamara, “The Irish Tradition,” pp. 32–34.67. Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “Mo-Sinnu,” p. 285.68. See chapter 5.69. Ó Néill, “Romani,” pp. 89–90.70. Columbanus, Ep., 1.9.71. Due to this Cahill is skeptical of an Irish provenance for the document.

McNamara argues for Irish features and the diversity of Psalm exegesis inIreland. 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 IrishWork?: Some New Considerations,” Peritia 8 (1994): 35–45. For argumentsfor an Irish provenance, see McNamara, “The Irish Tradition,” pp. 36–37;Walsh and Ó Cróinín, Cummian’s Letter, pp. 218–21.

72. Richter, Ireland, p. 198. For general surveys of Irish scholarship in this period, seeIbid., pp. 184–216; Ó Cróinín, Early Medieval Ireland, pp. 183–95, 203–21.

73. See, for instance, Hughes, The Church, pp. 130–31; Ó Néill, “Romani,”pp. 280–90.

74. Roger Reynolds, “The Transmission of the Hibernensis in Italy: Tenth to theTwelfth Century,” Peritia 14 (2000): 20–50. Reynolds discusses the Hibernensisin general, but his list of canons found in later collections can be compared with“Irish Synod” canons in the Hibernensis.

75. Martin McNamara, “Tradition and Creativity in Early Irish Psalter Study,” inIrland und Europa: Die Kirche im Frühmittelalter, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháinand Michael Richter (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984), pp. 338–89, at 377–81.

76. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 416–40.77. Ibid., pp. 428–29.78. CCH 20.6.79. Book of the Angel, 28.80. Ibid., 19; Tírechán, Collectanea, 48; Muirchú, Life of Patrick, 2.3.81. 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 fulfillingAugustine’s prophecy against the British. For additional information on theexile of Æthelfrith’s sons, see Hermann Moisl, “The Bernician Royal Dynastyand the Irish in the Seventh Century,” Peritia 2 (1983): 103–26, at 103–16;


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 217

Michelle Ziegler, “The Politics of Exile in Early Northumbria,” The HeroicAge 2 (1999). www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ ha2pen.htm

2. For additional information on Cadwallon and Penda, see among othersNicholas Brooks, “The Formation of the Mercian Kingdom,” in The Origins ofAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms, edited by Steven Bassett (Leicester: Leicester UniversityPress, 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.

3. Bede, HE, 3.1.4. For an excellent survey of the historiographical issues, see Clare Stancliffe,

“Oswald, ‘Most Holy and Most Victorious King of the Northumbrians,’ ” inOswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint, edited by Clare Stancliffe andEric Cambridge (Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1995), pp. 33–83. For a summary ofthe 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 byHelen Geake and Jonathan Kenny (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2000), pp. 41–49.

5. Heavenfield, near Hexham, near Hadrian’s Wall.6. Bede, HE, 3.2.7. For the broader cultural and political situation, see Rosemary Cramp, “The

Making of Oswald’s Northumbria,” in Stancliffe and Cambridge, Oswald,pp. 17–33.

8. Bede reports that James, a deacon, remained in Northumbria after Paulinusfled, but little is known about his activities between that time and the estab-lishment of the bishopric at Lindisfarne. Bede, HE, 2.20. For Paulinus’ journey,see Rex Gardner, “The Departure of Paulinus from Northumbria: AReappraisal,” Archaeologia Aeliana 5th series, 24 (1996): 73–77.

9. 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 Colgraveedition.

10. 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.

11. Bede, Letter to Egbert, in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, editedby Judith McClure and Roger Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995),pp. 343–57.

12. Ibid, pp. 353–55.13. 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 articleis available at Gerald Bonner, “Bede—Priest and Scholar,” Milltown Studies 39(1997): 66–77.

14. DeGregorio argues that issues of reform can especially be seen in Bede’s laterexegetical works. Scott DeGregorio, “ ‘Nostorum socordiam temporum’: TheReforming Impulse of Bede’s Later Exegesis,” EME 11, no. 2 (2002): 107–22.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 218

Scott DeGregorio, “Bede’s In Ezram et Neemiam and the Reform of theNorthumbrian Church,” Speculum 79, no. 1 (2004): 1–25.

15. See, for instance, Thacker, “Bede and the Irish,” pp. 31–59.16. Bede, HE, 5.21.17. Ibid., 2.19.18. Thacker, “Bede and the Irish,” pp. 33–34.19. Bede, HE, 3.3.20. “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 theirzeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness thatcomes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit toGod’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be right-eousness for everyone who believes” Rom. 10: 1–4 (NIV).

21. See, for example, Bede, HE, 3.3–4, 3.17, 3.25.22. Ibid., p. 115.23. Traditionally, Stephanus was identified as Eddius, a singing-master from Kent,

whom Bede reports was brought to Northumbria by Wilfrid. More recentscholarship, however, pointing out the insufficient evidence for connectingStephanus with Eddius favors using “Stepanus” or “Stephen of Ripon” for theauthor of the Life. Bede, HE, 4.2.

24. Stephanus, Vita Wilfridi Life of Wilfrid (VW), 2.25. Ibid., 3. This is the same man who was abbot when Bede was given to

Wearmouth as a child.26. 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, at165–67.

27. Stephanus, VW, 5–6.28. Ibid., 7–12.29. Ibid., 59.30. Ibid., 64.31. For additional theories on dating this work see D. P. Kirby, “Bede, Eddius

Stephanus and the ‘Life of Wilfrid,’ ” EHR 98 (1983): 101–14.32. Barbara Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (London:

Seaby, 1990; reprint 1997), pp. 111–17.33. Kirby, The Earliest, pp. 146–48.34. Clare Stancliffe, “Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish,” Jarrow Lecture (2003): 2–8.35. Stephanus, VW, 10.36. 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.

37. Mark Laynesmith, “Stephen of Ripon and the Bible: Allegorical andTypological Interpretations of the Life of St. Wilfrid,” EME 9, no. 2 (2000):163–82, at 169–72.

38. Stephanus, VW, 2, 6.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 219

39. Among other articles, see Bonner, “Bede—Priest and Scholar,” pp. 66–77;Bonner, “Bede: Scholar and Spiritual Teacher,” pp. 365–70; Jan Davidse, “OnBede as Christian Historian,” in Houwen and MacDonald, Beda Venerabilis,pp. 1–15; Goffart, The Historia Ecclesiastica, pp. 29–45; D. P. Kirby, Bede’sHistoria Ecclesiastica, pp. 1–22.

40. For a short summary of the major events in Oswald’s reign, see Kirby, TheEarliest, 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, TheConvert 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 ChristianMission 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 wouldhave championed as the next king. Ibid., pp. 7–8.

60. For issues on the exact dating, see Jennifer Moreton, “Doubts about theCalendar: Bede and the Eclipse of 664,” Isis 89 (1998): 50–65.

61. Daniel McCarthy and Daniel Breen, “Astronomical Observations in the IrishAnnals 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 runningor had run in vain.” Bede, HE, 3.25, p. 153.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 220

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, 1071. 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 LateSeventh 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 ofRoman Apostles and Martyrs in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries,” in EarlyMedieval 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 MichaelLapidge, “The Career of Archbishop Theodore,” in Lapidge, ArchbishopTheodore, 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 informationon 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 Penitentialof 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.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 221

18. Theodore, Penitential, 2.9.2.19. Ibid., 2.9.3, p. 207.20. Ibid., 1.5.6.21. Michael Lapidge and Michael Herren, Aldhelm: The Prose Works (Ipswich: D. S.

Brewer, 1979), pp. 141–43.22. Aldhelm, Letter to Geraint, in Lapidge and Herren, Aldhelm, pp. 155–60.23. Ibid., p. 157.24. Ibid., pp. 157–58.25. Ibid., p. 158.26. Bede, HE, 2.4.27. Aldhelm, Letter, p. 159.28. Ibid., pp. 159–60. Aldhelm quotes scripture for support: James 2:19–20,

1 Cor. 13:23.29. Bede, HE, 5.18.30. Stephanus, VW, 12–15.31. Ibid., 15, p. 33.32. Wilfrid had contacts with the Columbanian circle. It has been argued that

Stephanus’ allusions to the Queen as a second Jezebel may have been influ-enced by Jonas’ Life of Columbanus. Simon Coates, “The Role of Bishops in theEarly Anglo-Saxon Church: A Reassessment,” History 81 (1996): 177–96, at188–89.

33. Stephanus, VW, 24–32.34. Ibid., 33–34, 39–40.35. Ibid., 41–44.36. Ibid., 46–59.37. Ibid., 60–65.38. 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.

39. Stephanus, VW, 7, 9, and 15.40. Ibid., 7.41. Ibid., 24, p. 51. Laynesmith, “Stephen of Ripon,” pp. 174–75.42. 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).

43. For example: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falselysay all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, becausegreat is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophetswho were before you” (Matt. 5:11–12) and “If you belonged to the world, itwould love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I havechosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember thewords I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecutedme, they will persecute you also” (John 15:19–20a, NIV).

44. Coates, “The Role,” pp. 185–87.45. For a translation of The Deeds of Aunemund, see Fouracre and Gerberding, Late

Merovingian France, pp. 166–92.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 222

46. For translations of the Suffering of Leudegar and the Suffering of Praejectus, seeFouracre 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. 9956. Richard Gameson, “Why did Eadfrith Write the Lindisfarne Gospels?” in Belief

and Culture in the Middle Ages, edited by Richard Gameson and HenriettaLeyser (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 Bonneret 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,” inBonner et al., St Cuthbert, pp. 21–44, at 23, 27. It should be noted that Cubittargues 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-SaxonEngland,” in The Christian Tradition in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by PaulCavill (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.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 223

74. Higgitt, “The Iconography,” pp. 273–75, 85.75. Goffart, The Narrators, p. 256. For an analysis of the earliest surviving frag-

ments of Bede’s metrical Life, see Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge, “TheEarliest Manuscript of Bede’s Metrical Vita S. Cuthbercti,” ASE 32 (2003):43–54. For a general discussion on this Life, see Michael Lapidge, “Bede’sMetrical 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 quotesare from this edition. Bede composed the prose Life before 721. Kirby, “TheGenesis,” p. 385. Along with the references below, see Walter Berschin, “Opusdeliberatum ac perfectum: Why Did the Venerable Bede Write a Second ProseLife of St. Cuthbert,” in Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, pp. 95–102; CatherineCubitt, “Memory and Narrative in the Cult of Early Anglo-Saxon Saints,” inThe Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, edited by Yithak Hen and MatthewInnes (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 29–66, at39–50; John Eby, “Bringing the Vita to Life: Bede’s Symbolic Structure of theLife of St. Cuthbert,” ABR 48, no. 3 (1997): 316–38; Karl Lutterkort, “BedaHagiographicus: Meaning and Function of Miracle Stories in the VitaCuthberti and the Historia Ecclesiastica,” in Houwen and MacDonald, BedaVenerabilis, pp. 81–106, at 83–90; Carole Newlands, “Bede and Images of SaintCuthbert,” 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 ofDurham, 1987), p. 20.

94. Bede, PVC, 37–40.95. Ibid., 39, p. 285.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 224

96. D. P. Kirby, “Cuthbert, Boisil of Melrose and Ecgberht,” in Richter and Jean-Michel Picard, Ogma, pp. 48–53, at 51.

97. Goffart states “Wilfrid appears time and time again in books III-V [of theHistory], yet manages to escape any suspicion of greatness until his obituarynotice, 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 MacNiocaill (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1983), 711.3. Allquotes are from this edition.

2. The ground breaking article on this subject is John Bannerman, “Notes onthe Scottish Entries in the Early Irish Annals,” in Studies in the History ofDalriada, edited by John Bannerman (Edinburgh: Scottish AcademicPress, 1974), pp. 9–26. See also Daniel McCarthy, “The ChronologicalApparatus of the Annals of Ulster, AD 431–1131,” Peritia 8 (1994): 47–79;Daniel McCarthy, “The Chronological Apparatus of the Annals of UlsterAD 82–1019,” Peritia 16 (2002): 256–83; Daniel McCarthy, “TheOriginal 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 byWhitley Stokes (Felinfach: Llanerch Publishers, 1993). For analysis, seeKathryn Grabowski and David Dumville, Chronicles and Annals of MediaevalIreland 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 theEarly Irish Annals,” EME 10, no. 3 (2001): 323–41. For comparative tables ofthe events in the major annals by year and presentation order, see DanielMcCarthy, Irish Chronicles and Their Chronology 4 (2005); available from


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 225

https://www.cs.tcd. ie/Dan.McCarthy/chronology/synchronisms/annals-chron.htm.

6. For translations of these texts, see Brut Y Tywysogyon, 2nd ed., translated byThomas Jones (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1973); Annales Cambriae, inNennius: 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 frühenMittelalter, edited by Anton Scharer and Georg Scheibelreiter (München:R. Oldenbourg Verlag Wien, 1994), pp. 406–34; Kathleen Hughes, CelticBritain in the Early Middle Ages, edited by David Dumville (Woodbridge,Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1980).

7. Ségéne was abbot of Iona when Aidan was sent to Lindisfarne as bishop.8. Máire Herbert, Iona, Kells and Derry (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988),

pp. 45–46.9. For a summary of the major issues surrounding Adomnán, see Richter, Ireland,

pp. 66–88.10. 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.

11. 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 appearsmore chronologically accurate.

12. Bede, HE, 5.15. Alfred Smyth, Warlords and Holymen: Scotland AD 80–1000(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1984; reprint, 1989), pp. 130–31.

13. Adomnán, Life of St. Columba, translated by Richard Sharpe (London: PenguinBooks, 1995), 2.46.

14. Bede, HE, 5.15.15. 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.

16. O’Loughlin, Celtic Theology, p. 76; O’Loughlin, “Adomnán: A Man of ManyParts,” in O’Loughlin, Adomnán at Birr, pp. 41–51, at 46–47.

17. See chapter 6.18. Jean-Michel Picard, “The Purpose of Adomnan’s Vita Columbae,” Peritia 1

(1982): 160–77.19. Bede, HE, 5.21.20. Ibid., 5.15.21. See chapter 6.22. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 436–37.23. Bede, HE, 5.15.24. Ibid., 3.25.25. Herbert, Iona, pp. 142–46; Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland,

pp. 287–88. Picard argues that Adomnán’s composition of the Vita Columbaand his support of the saint illustrate that he did not adopt the Roman Easterdating. Picard, “The Purpose,” p. 166.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 226

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 medievalperiod, 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 byBarbara Crawford (Aberdeen: Scottish Cultural Press, 1996), pp. 93–110, at101–02.

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 ofChristianity on Early Historic Scotland,” in Religion and Belief in MedievalEurope, edited by Guy De Boe and Frans Verhaeghe (Zellik: Instituut voor hetArcheologisch 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: AReassessment,” 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, at127–43.

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, “PlaceNames,” pp. 93–110.

53. AU, 739.7.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 227

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 forthe generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made withoutyeast from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-firstday. 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 Seventh-

Century Wessex as Reflected by the Law Code of Ine,” Haskins Society Journal7 (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 MedievalCeltic Societies, pp. 15–38.

86. Dark, Civitas to Kingdom, pp. 223–25, 234.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 228

87. For a brief overview of this theory, see Huw Pryce, “Pastoral Care in EarlyMedieval 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 CelticChurch: 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 andWelsh Church History, edited by John Guy and W. G. Neely (Powys andArmagh: Welsh Religious History Society and the Church of Ireland HistoricalSociety, 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 andHeresy in the Post-Nicene Age,” in The Limits of Ancient Christianity, edited byWilliam Klingshirn and Mark Vessey (Ann Arbor, MI: University of MichiganPress, 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.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 229

17. Jonas, Vita Columbani, 2.9.18. Aldhelm, Letter to Geraint, pp. 156–57.19. Bede, HE, 3.25.20. Bede, HE, 5.21.21. CCH, 52.6.b.22. Bede HE, 5.21.23. Cummian, Letter, p. 95.24. Bede, HE, 3.25.25. Ibid., 2.19.26. Columbanus, Ep., 1.4.27. Bede, HE, 3.25.28. Cummian, Letter, pp. 91, 93.29. The Frankish Church had decided to adopt the Victorian table at the Council

of Orléans in 541. Orléans c. 1.30. Davies, Wales, p. 161.31. Bede, HE, 2.2, 3.25, 4.5.32. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church, pp. 94–109.33. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, pp. 105–07, 133.34. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 278–81.35. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, pp. 276–77.36. Charles-Edwards, “Introduction,” pp. lxxiv–lxxvi; Etchingham, Church

Organisation in Ireland, pp. 456–60.37. Bede, HE, 2.2.38. Pryce, “Pastoral Care,” pp. 41–62.39. Davies, “The Myth,” pp. 14–18; Snyder, The Britons, pp. 128–34.40. Herrin, The Formation, pp. 164–65; Mathisen, “Syagrius of Autun,”

pp. 278–84.41. Stephanus, VW, 34.42. Columbanus, Eps., 5.10–12; Bracken, “Authority and Duty,” pp. 173–74,

178–79; Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church, pp. 110–11.43. Herrin, The Formation of Christendom, pp. 121–25.44. Charles-Edwards, “The Penitential of Theodore,” pp. 164–68; de Jong,

“Transformations of Penance,” pp. 209–17; Meens, “Frequency and Nature,”pp. 47–55.

45. Dunn, “Gregory the Great,” pp. 253–54.46. 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).47. Charles-Edwards, “Britons in Ireland,” pp. 19–26.48. Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion, pp. 168–69; Ian N. Wood, The Missionary

Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe, 400–1050 (Essex: PearsonEducation, 2001), pp. 145–56, 160–62; Richer, Ireland, pp. 124–34.

49. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church, pp. 144–49.50. Wood, The Missionary Life, pp. 39–42.51. Ibid., pp. 150–52.52. Bede, HE, 5.22. Kirby, “Cuthbert, Boisil of Melrose,” pp. 51–53.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 230

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 WelshChurch History, edited by John Guy and W. G. Neely (Powys, Armagh: WelshReligious 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.


1403972990ts13.qxd 15/7/06 1:08 PM Page 231

Bibliography

Primary Documents

Additamentum Nivialense de Fuilano. In Late Merovingian France, translated byFouracre and Gerberding, 327–29

Adomnán. Life of St. Columba. Translated by Richard Sharpe. London: PenguinBooks, 1995.

Aldhelm. Letter to Geraint. In Aldhelm: The Prose Works, translated by Lapidge andHerren, 155–60.

Anatolius. The Anti-Nicene Christian Pasch: De ratione paschali. Translated by DanielMcCarthy and Aidan Breen. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003.

Annales Cambriae. In Nennius: British History and Welsh Annals, Edited andTranslated by John Morris, London: Phillimore, 1980, 44–49, 85–91.

The Annals of Inisfallen. Translated by Sean Mac Airt. Dublin: Dublin Institute forAdvanced 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 byPhilip 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 andCollins, 307–340.

———. Letter to Egbert. In The Ecclesiastical History, edited by McClure andCollins, 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.

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 232

Codice Diplomatico del Monastero di S. Columbano di Bobbio. Edited by CarloCipolla. Vol. 1. Roma: Institutuo Storico Italiano, 1918.

Cogitosus, Life of St. Brigit. See Sean Connolly and Jean-Michel Picard. “Cogitosus’sLife of St. Brigit.” JRSAI 117 (1987): 5–27.

Collectio Canonum Hibernensis. Latin text in Die irische Kanonensammlung. Editedby F. W. H. Wasserschleben. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1885.

Colman, Letter to Feradach. See Richard Sharpe, “An Irish Textual Critic and theCarmen 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; transla-tion of the letter to Gregory in Robert Stanton. “Letter 1: Translation andCommentary.” JML 3 (1993): 149–68.

———. Monks’ Rule (Regula Monachorum). In Sancti Columbani Opera, edited byWalker, 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, translatedby 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 controversiaPaschali Together with a Related Irish Computistical Tract De ratione conputandi,translated by Maura Walsh and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, 56–97. Toronto: PontificalInstitute of Medieval Studies, 1988.

The Deeds of Aunemund. In Late Merovingian France, translated by Fouracre andGerberding, 166–92.

Donatus. The Rule of Donatus. In The Ordeal of Community, The Rule of Donatusof Besançon, The Rule of a Certain Father to the Virgins, translated by Jo AnnMcNamara 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 andtranslated by Michael Winterbottom, Totowa, NJ: Roman and Littlefield, 1978,13–79, 87–142.

Bibliography 233

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 233

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: BibliotecaApostolica 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 trans-

lated 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 byAdalbert de Vogüé, Aux sources due monachisme colombanien I. Bégrolles-en-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 EdwardPeters, 77–113. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1975. Englishtranslation of portions of book 2 see; “The Abbots of Bobbio, from The Life ofSt. 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, editedby O’Loughlin, 53–68.

Life and Miracles of Fursey. Latin text in Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae, edited byW. W. Heist, 37–50. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1965.

Life of Amatus, Abbot of Remiremont. Latin text Vita Amati Abbatis Habendensis. InMGH, SRM 4, edited by Bruno Krusch, 215–21. Hannover: ImpensisBibliopolii Hahniani, 1902.

Life of Audoin, Bishop of Rouen. In Late Medieval France, translated by Fouracre andGerberding, 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

Bibliography234

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 234

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 BertramColgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927. Reprint, 1985.

The Suffering of Leudegar. In Late Merovingian France, translated by Fouracre andGerberding, 193–53.

The Suffering of Praejectus. In Late Merovingian France, translated by Fouracre andGerberding, 264–300.

The Synod of the Grove of Victory. In Medieval Handbooks, translated by McNeill andGamer, 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-CenturyWessex 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.” InStudies 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 fromBritish to Anglo-Saxon Control.” In Blair and Sharpe, Pastoral Care, 13–40.

———. “How the West Was Won: The Anglo-Saxon Takeover of the WestMidlands.” In Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 11, edited byDavid Griffiths, 107–18. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology,2000.

———. “Medieval Ecclesiastical Organisation in the Vicinity of Wroxeter and ItsBritish 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.

Bibliography 235

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 235

Bieler, Ludwig. The Irish Penitentials. Dublin: Dublin Institute for AdvancedStudies, 1963.

———. The Patrician Texts in the Book of Armagh. Dublin: Dublin Institute forAdvanced Studies, 1979.

Bischoff, Bernhard, and Michael Lapidge. Biblical Commentaries from theCanterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1994.

Blackburn, Bonnie and Leofranc Holford-Stevens. The Oxford Companion to theYear. 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 AntiqueThought and Culture in Honor of R. A. Markus, edited by William Klingshirn andMark 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 ElisabethVan Houts, 83–94. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004.

Brooks, Nicholas. “Canterbury, Rome and the Construction of English Identity.” InEarly 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 fraOriente e Occidente, 797–832. Spoleto: Presso le Sede del Centro, 2002.

———. “The Formation of the Mercian Kingdom.” In The Origins of Anglo-SaxonKingdoms, edited by Steven Bassett, 159–70. Leicester: Leicester UniversityPress, 1989.

———. “The Legacy of Saints Gregory and Augustine in England.” CCC 92(1998): 45–59.

Bibliography236

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 236

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 theAfterlife from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages.” In Last Things: Death and theApocalypse in the Middle Ages, edited by Caroline Walker Bynum and PaulFreedman, 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 rationeconputandi.” Peritia 8 (1994): 216–20.

———. “Review of Michael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s Christ in CelticChristianity.” EME 13, no. 4 (2005): 428–31.

———. “The Social Background to Irish Peregrinatio.” In The Otherworld Voyage inEarly Irish Literature, edited by Jonathan Wooding, 94–109. Dublin: FourCourts Press, 2000.

Chazelle, Celia. “Review of Michael Herren and Shirley Ann Brown’s, Christ inCeltic 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 FrankKidner, 149–58. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2004.

Clarke, H. B. and Mary Brennan. Columbanus and Merovingian Monasticism.Oxford: B. A. R., 1981.

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 237

Bibliography238

Coates, Simon. “The Bishop as Pastor and Solitary: Bede and the SpiritualAuthority 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 Today49, no. 5 (1999): 7–13.

———. “Venantius Fortunatus and the Image of Episcopal Authority in LateAntique and Early Merovingian Gaul.” EHR 65 (2000): 1109–37.

Colgrave, Bertram. Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 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 Anglo-

Saxon England.” In The Christian Tradition in Anglo-Saxon England, edited byPaul Cavill, 41–54. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2004.

———. “Memory and Narrative in the Cult of Early Anglo-Saxon Saints.” In TheUses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, edited by Yithak Hen and MatthewInnes, 29–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

———. “Wilfrid’s ‘Usurping Bishops’: Episcopal Elections in Anglo-SaxonEngland, c. 600–800.” NH 24 (1989): 18–38.

Cunningham, Bernadette, and Raymond Gillespie. “The Cult of St David inIreland before 1700.” In Contrasts and Comparisons: Studies in Irish and WelshChurch History, edited by John Guy and W. G. Neely, 27–42. Welshpool, Powysand Keady, Co.Armagh: The Welsh Religious History Society and The Churchof Ireland Historical Soceity, 1999.

Cuscito, Guiseppe. “La politica religiosa della corte Longobarda di fronte allo scismadei 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 andTransmission, edited by Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter, 249–67.Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002.

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 238

Davies, Luned Mair. “Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua and the Gallic Councils in theHibernensis.” 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 andthe West, edited by Nancy Edwards and Alan Lane, 12–21. Oxford: OxbowPress, 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.” EHR107 (1992): 95–103.

Deansesly, M. and P. Grosjean. “The Canterbury Edition of the Answers of PopeGregory 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 MedievalLiturgy, edited by Lizette Larson-Miller, 121–63. New York: GarlandPublishing, 1997.

Dumville, David. “British Missionary Activity in Ireland.” In Dumville, SaintPatrick, 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 GeorgScheibelreiter, 406–34. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994.

———. “Muirchu’s Life of St. Patrick from the Book of Armagh.” In Dumville, SaintPatrick, 203–219.

———. “St. Finnian of Movilla: Briton, Gael, Ghost?” In Down: History andSociety, 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.

Bibliography 239

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 239

Etchingham, Colmán. “Bishoprics in Ireland and Wales in the Early Middle Ages:Some Comparisons.” In Contrasts and Comparisons: Studies in Irish and WelshChurch History, edited by John Guy and W. G. Neely, 7–25. Welshpool, Powysand Keady, Co. Armagh: The Welsh Religious History Society and the Churchof 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 HistoriaeConciliorum 23 (1991): 1–10.

———. “Sexual Depravity, Doctrinal Error, and Character Assassination in the FourthCentury: 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 Boeand Frans Verhaeghe, 229–240. Zellik: Instituut voor het ArcheologischPatrimonium, 1997.

Fouracre, Paul. “Merovingian History and Merovingian Hagiography.” Past andPresent 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 andHagiography, 640–720. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996.

Frantzen, Allen J. The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983.

Gameson, Richard. “Augustine of Canterbury: Context and Achievement.” InGameson, 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.

Bibliography240

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 240

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. deBoccard, 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: LeicesterUniversity Press, 1992.

George, Judith W. Venantius Fortunatus: A Latin Poet in Merovingian Gaul. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1992.

———. Venantius Fortunatus: Personal and Political Poems. Liverpool: LiverpoolUniversity Press, 1995.

Gneuss, Helmut, and Michael Lapidge. “The Earliest Manuscript of Bede’s MetricalVita 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 SocietyJournal 2 (1990): 29–45.

———. The Narrators of Barbarian History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, 1988.

Grabowski, Kathryn and David Dumville. Chronicles and Annals of MediaevalIreland and Wales. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1984.

Gray, Patrick, and Michael Herren. “Columbanus and the Three ChaptersControversy—A New Approach.” JTS n.s. 45, no. 1 (1994): 160–70.

Handley, Mark. “The Origins of Christian Commemoration in Late AntiqueBritain.” 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.

Bibliography 241

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 241

Hen, Yitzhak. “Latin and Vernacular Hagiography of Ireland from the Origins tothe 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 andDavid 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 EarlyEngland.” 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.

Bibliography242

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 242

Johnson, Maxwell. The Rites of Christian Initiation. Collegeville, MN: LiturgicalPress, 1999.

Jones, Charles. “The Victorian and Dionysiac Paschal Tables in the West.” Speculum9, no. 4 (1934): 408–21.

Kelly, Joseph. “The Letter of Columbanus to Gregory the Great.” In GregorioMagno 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: SomeHistorical 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 andInfluence. 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 andMacDonald, 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 MichaelRichter, 228–39. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1996.

MacLean, Douglas. “The Date of the Ruthwell Cross.” In The Ruthwell Cross, editedby Brendan Cassidy, 49–70. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1992.

Macquarrie, Alan. The Saints of Scotland. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers,1997.

Bibliography 243

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 243

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: CambridgeUniversity 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.” InL’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 AD82–1019.” 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 JamesMcEvoy, 25–54. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996.

———. “The Psalms in the Irish Church.” In The Bible as Book: The ManuscriptTradition, edited by John Sharpe and Kimberly Van Kampen, 89–103. London:British Library, 1998.

Bibliography244

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 244

McNamara, Martin. “Tradition and Creativity in Early Irish Psalter Study.” InIrland und Europa: Die Kirche im Frühmittelalter, edited by Próinséas NíChatháin 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 Interpretationsand 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: VariorumReprints, 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: FourCourts Press, 2002.

Bibliography 245

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 245

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 andRichter, Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, 68–77.

———. “Romani Influences on Seventh-Century Hiberno-Latin Literature.” InChatháin 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 TheCommunity, 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: AReassessment.” 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’histoiredes 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 theRhine.” 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, PastoralCare, 41–62.

Quensel-von Kablen, Lucas. “The British Church and the Emergence of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.” In The Making of Kingdoms, edited by Tania Dickinson andDavid Griffiths, 89–97. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology,1999.

Reynolds, Roger. “The Transmission of the Hibernensis in Italy: Tenth to the TwelfthCentury.” Peritia 14 (2000): 20–50.

Bibliography246

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 246

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 RichardSharpe, 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 MedievalCanon Law, edited by Stephan Kuttner, 31–41. Vatican City: BibliotecaApostolica 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: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1998.

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 247

Bibliography248

Sims-Williams, Patrick. “The Visonary Celt: The Construction of an EthnicPreconception.” 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 StateUniversity, 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 àOlivier 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 inIrish Hagiography, 189–220.

———. “Kings and Conversion: Some Comparisons between the Roman Mission toEngland and Patrick’s to Ireland.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 14 (1980): 59–94.

———. “The Miracles Stories in Seventh-Century Irish Saints’ Lives.” In LeSeptiéme siécle: changements et continuities, edited by Jacques Fontaine andJ. 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 andEric 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 UniversityPress, 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. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.

Stevens, Wesley. “Cycles of Time: Calendrical and Astronomical Reckonings inEarly 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 CelticChurch, 2nd ed., ix–cxxviii. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1987.

———. The “Laterculus Malalianus” and the School of Archbishop Theodore.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 248

Taylor, Simon. “Place-Names and the Early Church in Eastern Scotland.” InScotland 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 andClancy, Spes Scotorum, 35–70.

Thacker, Alan. “Bede’s Ideal of Reform.” In Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon 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 Apostlesand Martyrs in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries.” In Early Medieval Rome andthe 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 HistoricalCommentary. 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.

Bibliography 249

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 249

Bibliography250

Wood, Ian N. “Administration, Law and Culture in Merovingian Gaul.” In The Usesof 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 missionau VIe siècle, edited by Christophe de Dreuille, 148–79. Paris: Les Éditions duCerf, 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. NewYork: Routledge, 2000.

———. “Jonas, the Merovingians, and Pope Honorius: Diplomata and the VitaColumbani.” 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 Armstrongand Ian N. Wood, 27–35. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000.

———. “The Use and Abuse of Latin Hagiography in the Early Medieval West.” InEast and West: Modes of Communication, edited by Evangelos Chrysos and InaN. 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

1403972990ts14.qxd 18/7/06 9:21 PM Page 250

abbas, definition of, 98Abelenus, bishop of Geneva, 49–50,

53–4, 204n45Acca, bishop of Hexham, 116, 117–18Adaloald, king of the Lombards, 56Adomnán, abbot of Iona, 96, 151–6,

160–1, 164, 168, 173Law of, 100, 155, 156, 157Life of Columba, 152, 153, 154–5,

156, 157Æthelbald, king of Mercia, 118Æthelberht, king of Kent, 70, 77–8, 79Æthelfrith, king of Northumbria, 71,

112, 174, 217n1Agilbert, bishop of the West Saxons

and later of Paris, 117, 121, 122,124, 125

Agatho, pope, 124, 135Agilulf, king of Lombards, 22, 41Agrestius, monk of Luxeuil, 48–51, 53,

54, 56, 58Aidan, bishop of the Northumbrians,

114, 116, 119, 128, 138, 140,144, 145, 147, 149, 172

Alban, martyr, 67Albinus, abbot of Sts. Peter and Paul,

Canterbury, 69Aldfrith, king of Northumbria, 136,

151–2, 226n10Aldhelm, 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, 58Ambrosiaster, Book of Questions, 85,

212n20Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea, 27–8,

198n30, 212n29On the Pasch, 28, 29, 86–7, 124–5,

125–6, 127, 170, 177, 198n30Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals), 151,

165, 167Annals of Inisfallen, 151Annals of Tigernach, 151Annals of Ulster, 150–1, 163Aquileian schism, see Three Chapters

controversyArians, 22, 31, 40, 41, 55, 56, 57Arioald, king of the Lombards, 55, 56Armagh, 89, 96, 100, 102, 108–9,

153, 163, 171Athala, abbot of Bobbio, 29, 47, 49,

56, 57, 59, 61Athanasius, Life of Anthony, 142,

144–5, 154Audoin, bishop of Rouen, 37, 122Augustine, bishop of Canterbury, 65,

68, 70–81, 144, 167–8, 174, 175Augustine, bishop of Hippo, 11, 13,

17, 86, 144, 209n40Aunemundus, bishop of Lyons,

117, 137

Bangor, monastery, 17, 22, 82–3Balthild, wife of Clovis, 48Bangor-is-Coed, monastery, 71, 175Baptism, 73–6, 80

Index

1403972990ts15.qxd 18/7/06 5:13 PM Page 251

Basil, bishop of Caesarea,on penance, 16

Béccán, hermit, 84, 85, 101Bede, 68–9

and the British Church, 70–3, 76,115, 116

and Church reform, 114–15, 119and Cuthbert, 114, 130, 142–5,

146, 147and 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, 83and Iona, 114–16, 119, 171–2Letter to Egbert, 114–15metrical Life of Cuthbert, 142, 144prose Life of Cuthbert, 142–5The Reckoning of Time, 70, 83and Wilfrid, 146–7, 148, 149

Benedict Biscop, abbot of Wearmouth,68, 117

Benedict of Nursia, 144, 145, 154, 155Rule of, 60–1, 63, 119, 128, 129,

135, 137, 138–9, 141–2Bernicia, kingdom of, 66, 112Bertulf, abbot of Bobbio, 45, 47, 55–6, 61Birr, synod of, 155, 175

see also Adomnánbishops

in the British Church, 167–8in the Frankish Church, 36–9in 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, 56Book of the Angel, 96, 109Bosa, bishop of York, 139Brigit of Kildare, 96British Church

and Augustine, 70–1, 73–9, 80baptism, 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, 80organization, 167–8, 174–5survival of, 65–8

Bruide, king of the Picts, 157, 158Brunhild, Merovingian queen, 22, 24,

34–6, 37, 39–40, 50, 53, 65, 83,137, 175, 200n77

Brut y Tywysogyon (Chronicle of thePrinces), 151, 165

Burgundofara, abbess of Faremoutiers, 47, 57

Burgundofaro, bishop of Meaux, 47Burgundy, kingdom of, 19, 23, 29, 34,

35, 38, 53–4

Cadwallon, king of Gwynedd, 112Caesarius, bishop of Arles, 79, 205n81Cáin Adomnáin, see AdomnánCassian, John, 15, 60Cathach of St. Columba, 106Cedd, bishop of the East Saxons, 120, 124Celtic Church, popular understanding

of, 1–4, 37, 39, 94, 95, 96–7,167, 180–1

Celtic-84 table, see Easter tablesCeltic tradition, definition of, 4, 18Cenél Comgaill, 157, 158Cenwealh, king of the West Saxons, 122Ceolfrid, abbot of Wearmouth-Jarrow

Letter to Nechtan, 13, 14, 92, 153,156–62, 170, 171, 172, 173

Ceolred, king of Mercia, 118Ceolwulf, king of Northumbria, 113Chad, bishop of York and later of

Mercia, 135, 138Chagneric, count of Meaux, 47Chagnoald, bishop of Laon, 47Chalon, Council of, see councilsChildebert II, king of Burgundy and

Neustria, 22, 37, 39

Index252

1403972990ts15.qxd 18/7/06 5:13 PM Page 252

Chilperic I, king of Soissons, 37Chlothar II, king Neustria, then

Burgundy and Austrasia, 22, 24,35, 36, 37, 41, 49, 53–4

Chronicle of Fredegar, 21–2, 46, 53Clovis II, king of Neustria and

Burgundy, then Austrasia, 35Cœnred, king of Northumbria, 118Cogitosus, Life of Brigit, 96Collectio 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 clericLetter to Feradach, 105

Columba, abbot of Iona, 17, 116,124–5, 126, 127, 151, 154–5,156, 157, 168, 173

Life of, see AdomnánColumbanus, abbot, 17, 22–4, 81–2, 137

and bishops, 37–40, 47, 48and the Easter controversy, 24–30,

43–4, 78, 83, 86, 170, 173letters, 21, 26–30, 32–3, 170, 172,

178–9Life of, see Jonasand monarchs, 34–6, 40–1, 43and the nobility, 47, 48and the papacy, 32–3, 107, 176penitential, 15–16, 41–3, 177, 179,rules, 57–61, 63, 64

Conamail, abbot of Iona, 156Constantius of Lyons,

Life of Germanus, 67, 71–2, 154–5councils, 174–5

of Antioch, 86of Chalcedon, 31of Chalon, 21, 28–9, 35–6, 37–8,

40, 44, 51–2, 175, 178–9of Clichy, 53First Council of Constantinople, 30Second Council of Constantinople, 31

of Hertford, 132, 134, 168, 174of Nicaea, 5, 11–12, 30, 83, 86, 87,

125, 126–7, 132, 134, 173see also synods

Cú Chuimne of Iona, 96, 105Cummian, 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, 223n68Lives of, 130, 141–45, 147, 148, 154

Dado see AudoinDagán, Irish bishop, 81–2, 134, 170Dagobert I, king of Austasia, then

Neustria and Burgundy, 24, 35, 48Dál Ríata, kingdom of, 66, 110, 114,

115, 129, 150, 155, 157, 158, 164Deira, kingdom of, 66, 112, 121Desiderius, bishop of Vienne, 36, 37,

137, 175Dionysius Exiguus, 7Dionysian table, see Easter tablesDiuma, bishop of Mercia, 120doctores, see scholarsDonatus, bishop of Besançon, 60,

204n45rule of, 60, 61, 205n81

Dorbéne, abbot of Iona, 156Dumnonia, kingdom of, 66, 133Dunchad, abbot of Iona, 15Dyfed, kingdom of, 66, 134, 167

Eanflæd, wife of Oswiu, 113, 117Eanfrith, king of Bernicia, 112, 113Easter 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

Index 253

1403972990ts15.qxd 18/7/06 5:13 PM Page 253

Easter controversy––continuedcalculating the date of, 5–8, 12and 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 ChurchNew Testament, 10, 18, 29, 86, 116,

125, 126, 159Old Testament, 10, 18, 27, 29, 71,

85, 125, 159, 161, 179and the Picts, 156–62, 163–4and the papacy, 7, 27, 30, 83–4,

89–93, 118, 131, 148, 170, 172practical issues, 9, 13, 18, 73, 93,

127, 154, 169symbolism, 5, 10–11, 18, 27, 73,

80, 92, 131, 160, 169theological issues, 9–13, 18, 29, 71, 73,

85, 86, 116, 125, 126, 159, 161Easter 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-84Nicene, 87Victorian, 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 andHexham, 139, 141, 143

eccles (ecclesia), place name, 67Ecgberht, see EgbertEcgfrith, king of the Northumbrians,

113, 135, 136, 137, 146–7, 152, 176

Eddius Stephanus, see StephanusEdwin, king of Northumbria, 76, 112,

113, 114, 120, 121Egbert, bishop of York, 114Egbert, priest, Northumbrian

peregrinus, 162, 178Egidius, bishop of Rheims, 37Elfoddw, archbishop of Gwynedd, 165,

167, 174Eligius, bishop of Noyon, 37Erchinoald, Neustrian maior, 62Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea,

Ecclesiastical History, 28Life of Constantine, 11–12

Eustasius, abbot of Luxeuil, 45, 47,48–55, 56, 58

exemptions, see privileges

Fáelchú, abbot of Iona, 150, 156familia, definition of, 98–9Faremoutiers, convent, 23, 45, 47, 48,

57, 60Faro, bishop of Meaux, see

BugundofaroFinán, bishop of the Northumbrians,

120, 122–3, 147Finnian, bishop, 15, 42, 67, 179,

195n85

Index254

1403972990ts15.qxd 18/7/06 5:13 PM Page 254

Fintán, abbot of Taghmon, 88–9First Synod of St. Patrick, see synodsFoillán, abbot of Péronne and Fosses, 62Frankish 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, 36–9Fredegar, Chronicle of, 21–2, 46, 53Fursey, Irish peregrinus, 17, 62–3, 178

Geraint, king of Dumnonia, 133–4Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, 67,

71–2, 154Gildas, British ascetic

penitential, 15, 67, 179The Ruin of Britain, 67, 68, 71, 80

Gregory, bishop of ToursTen Books of Histories (History of the

Franks), 14, 21, 25, 32Gregory the Great, pope, 39,

74–5, 102and Columbanus, 26–8, 32, 170Dialogues, 144, 154humility, 37–8, 78, 102Libellus Responsionum, 68, 74,

77–9, 144mission to the Anglo-Saxons, 65,

69–70, 74–5, 77–9, 81, 82, 114Pastoral Care, 37–8, 107

Grimoald, Austrasian maior, 62Gundoin, duke, 47

hairstyles, symbolism of, 13see also tonsures

Heavenfield, battle of, 112, 218n5Herefrith, abbot of Lindisfarne, 144heresy, see Easter controversyHexham, church of, 66, 116, 136,

139, 141

Hibernenses, see Irish ChurchHibernensis, see Collectio Canonum

HibernensisHild, abbess of Whitby, 124, 174Honorius, I, pope

and Bobbio, 38, 47, 55–7, 171letter to the Irish Church, 83–4, 88,

91, 92, 93, 118, 170, 172and the Lombards, 56–7

Hwicce, kingdom of, 66, 70, 76

Ibas of Edessa, 31Iona, monastery, 66, 100–1, 108,

109–10, 147, 171–2and 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 abbotsIrish Church

and the Easter controversy, 81–94, 105, 108–9, 151–6,162–4

“Irish” party or Hibernenses, 102–8, 175organization, 96–102“Roman” party or Romani, 102–8, 175synods, 85, 88–91, 93–4, 100,

155, 175Itta, mother of the Austrasian maior

Grumoald, 62Iurmenburgh, queen of Northumbria,

135–6, 137

Jarrow, monastery, 66, 68–9, 70, 158

Jerome, 28, 30, 85–6, 127, 170, 177On Illustrious Men, 28

Jezebel, 34, 36, 135, 137, 200n77,222n32

John IV, pope, 89–93, 94, 101, 115,118, 151, 171, 172, 173, 176

Index 255

1403972990ts15.qxd 18/7/06 5:13 PM Page 255

Jonas of Bobbio, 20Life 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, 122Justus, 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, 88–9Lagny, monastery, 23, 62Latercus, see Easter tablesLaurence, bishop of Canterbury, 79,

80, 81–2, 93, 134, 170, 172Law of Adomnán (Innocents), see

AdomnánLeudegar, bishop of Autun, 137Lindisfarne, 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 synodsMag Léne, Synod of, see synodsMagonsæte, kingdom of, 66, 76maior, definition of, 53Martin, bishop of Tours,

Lives of, 142, 154Mellitus, bishop of London, 79, 80,

81–82Melrose, monastery, 66, 121, 141,

143–4Mercia, kingdom of, 66, 112, 118,

120, 121, 132, 135, 165

monachus, definition of, 98monastic rules, see rulesMo-Sinu maccu Min, abbot of Bangor,

82–3, 106Muirchú, Life of Patrick, 96

Nechtan, king of the Picts, 13, 156–61,163–4, 174

Nennius, History of the Britons, 76, 151Nestorius/Nestorian, 31, 199n49Neustria, kingdom of, 23, 36, 41,

53, 62Nicaea, Council of, see councilsNivelles, monastery, 23, 62Northumbria, 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, 85Osred, king of Northumbria, 113, 118,

150, 158Osric, king of Deira, 112, 113Osric, king of Northumbria,

113, 118Oswald, king of Northumbria,

112–14, 120, 122Oswine, king of Deira, 113, 120, 121Oswiu, 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, 180Paschal controversy, see Easter

controversyPassover, definition of, 10, 27Patrick, 17, 62, 67, 96, 97, 108, 109,

179, 196n106

Index256

1403972990ts15.qxd 18/7/06 5:13 PM Page 256

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, 177public, 14–15, 42

Penda, king of Mercia, 112, 120, 121penitentials, 15–17, 18, 44, 62–3, 67,

68, 104, 180Penitential of Columbanus, 15–16,

41–3, 177, 179Penitential of Theodore, 132–3, 138,

148, 171peregrinatio, 17, 18, 63, 64, 177–8

see also individual peregriniPéronne, monastery, 23, 62Picts, 66, 156–62, 163–4, 170, 174pilgrimage, see peregrinatiopopes see papacy and individual

popesPraetextatus, bishop of Rouen, 37princeps, definition of, 97–8, 101privileges, 38–9, 47, 55–6, 57, 84,

102, 171Probus, bishop of Tortona, 55, 57Purgatory, 63, 177

Quartodecimanism, 83, 91–2, 93,118–20, 127–8, 132–3, 134, 135,137–8, 148, 170–71, 172

Rebais, monastery, 23, 47–8Remiremont, monastery, 23, 47, 58,

59, 61Rhun, possibly king of Rheged, 76Ríagail Phátraic (the Rule of Patrick),

96Ripon, church, 66, 117, 121, 122,

135, 136, 141, 143, 147, 158“Roman” party in the Irish Church, see

Irish ChurchRoman tradition, definition of, 4

Romani, see Irish ChurchRomaric, abbot of Remiremont, 58Rónán, Irishman active in

Northumbria, 120, 123Rubin of Dairinis, 96rules, 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, 129Rule of the Master, 61

Sadalberga, abbess of Laon, 47saints’ Lives, see individual LivesSamson, bishop of Dol, 17, 179scholar, ecclesiastical, 27, 28, 71, 89,

101, 106, 167–8, 173, 174, 175Second Council of Constantinople, see

councilsSégéne, abbot of Iona, 84, 85, 86, 87,

89, 91, 93, 151, 170–1, 173–4,179, 226n7

Sigibert I, king of Rheims, 24, 35Sigibert, II, king of Austria and

Burgundy, 24, 35Simon Magus, heretic, 13, 14, 104,

133, 134, 160–1, 172, 173, 180Sinilis, see Mo-Sinu maccu MinSinodus Hibernensis, see synodsSinodus Romana, see synodsSixtus, martyr, 68Solignac, monastery, 23, 48Stephanus, 116–17, 219n23

Life of Wilfrid, 114, 116–20, 122,126–9, 135–9, 143, 158, 171,176, 222n32

Sulpicius, bishop of Bourges, 37Sulpicius Severus

84-year paschal cycle, 8Life of Martin of Tours, 142, 154

Index 257

1403972990ts15.qxd 18/7/06 5:13 PM Page 257

Swithhelm, king of the East Saxons, 120

synods, 174–5of Arles, 86of Austerfield, 136, 138–9of Birr, 100, 155, 175First Synod of St. Patrick, 96of the Grove of Victory, 67, 167“Irish” synod (Sinodus Hibernensis),

103, 104–5, 107–8, 111, 171, 175

of Mâcon, 46, 48–55, 174of Mag Léne, 85, 88, 89, 93, 101of Mag nAilbe, 88–9, 93of Nidd, 136of North Britain, 67, 167of Orleans, 25“Roman” synod (Sinodus Romana),

103, 104–5, 107–8, 109, 111,171, 175

Second Synod of St. Patrick, 96, 98of Whitby, 114, 116, 117, 121–9,

130, 149, 154, 158, 161, 170,171, 172, 173, 174

see also councils

Talorg, son of Drostan, 158Tatberht, abbot of Ripon, 116,

117–18Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury,

96, 108, 132–3, 135, 136, 139,145, 146–7, 174, 176

Penitential of Theodore, seepenitentials

Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, 31Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, 31Theuderic II, king of Burgundy, 22,

24, 34, 35–6, 39, 50, 53, 82, 175Theudebert, king of Austrasia, 22,

24, 41Three Chapters controversy, 31, 33,

40, 49, 56, 176Tírechán, Collectanea, 96

Tómíne, bishop of Armagh, 89tonsure

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, 54túath, Irish kingdom, 99, 100

Uinniau, see FinnianUltán, 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 tablesVitalian, pope, 131–2

Waldebert, abbot of Luxeuil, 47, 61Warnachar, Burgundian maior, 49, 50,

53–4Wearmouth, monastery, 66, 68–9, 117Welsh Annals (Annales Cambriae),

151, 165Whitby, Synod of, see synodsWilfrid, abbot and bishop, 117, 136–8,

143, 158Bede’s attitude toward, 146–7, 149and the Easter controversy, 121–2,

125–7, 128–9, 173, 174and Lindisfarne, 139–40, 141,

142, 143and the Roman traditions, 118,

119–20, 128–9, 130, 138–9,141–2, 145, 155, 171

see also StephanusWillibrord, archbishop of

Utrecht, 178

Index258

1403972990ts15.qxd 18/7/06 5:13 PM Page 258