¹ To Pope Gregory.

² To the holy lord and father in Christ, the Roman pope, the most beautiful ornament of the Church, a certain most exalted flower, as it were, of all fading Europe, a distinguished observer who enjoys divine contemplation in purity. I, Bargoma, a humble dove in Christ, send greetings.

³ Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. I am pleased to believe, O holy pope, that it will not seem extravagant to you to be questioned about Easter, in accordance with the canticle: “Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you.” For although that excellent saying of a certain wise man may well be applied to me, who am indeed a trifler—who, upon seeing a certain woman adorned with excessive ornamentation, is reported to have said, “I do not admire the art, but I admire the brow”—in that I, who am insignificant, write to you, who are illustrious, yet relying on my trust in your evangelical humility, I dare to write to you and lay before you the cause of my distress. For writing is not in vain when necessity compels one to write, even to those far greater than oneself.

⁴ What, then, do you say about celebrating Easter on the 21st or 22nd day of the moon, which—if I may say so with your permission—is proven by many calculators not to be the true Easter, but rather a time of darkness? For, as I believe, it is not unknown to your Eminence how Anatolius—a man of extraordinary learning, as Saint Jerome affirms, with excerpts from his writings included by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History, and whose work on Easter is praised by Saint Jerome in his catalogue—strongly disapproved of this phase of the moon. He refuted the Gallican Rimarii, who, as he stated, erred concerning Easter, and pronounced a severe judgment, saying: “Certainly, if the rising of the moon is delayed until the end of two watches, which signifies midnight, then light does not overcome darkness, but rather darkness overcomes light; and this must not be allowed in the Easter celebration, since the solemnity of the Lord’s Resurrection is light, and there is no fellowship between light and darkness.” Furthermore, if the moon has not appeared until the third watch, it is clear that it has risen on its 21st or 22nd day, during which it is not possible to offer a true Paschal sacrifice. Those who claim that Easter can be rightly celebrated at this phase of the moon not only lack support from divine Scripture, but also bring upon themselves the guilt of sacrilege, stubbornness, and the peril of their souls by asserting that the true Light, which overcomes all darkness, can be properly celebrated while darkness still holds sway.

⁵ Also, in the book of holy doctrine, we read that Easter—the solemnity of the Lord’s Resurrection—cannot be celebrated before the beginning of the vernal equinox has passed, so that it may not occur before the equinox. However, Victorius has certainly overstepped this rule in his cycle, thereby introducing error into Gaul—or, to speak more cautiously, confirming an error of old. For how can either of these things be reasonable? That the Lord’s Resurrection should be celebrated before His Passion—an idea which is clearly absurd—or that the seven days appointed by the Lord’s command in the Law, during which alone it was lawful to eat the Lord’s Passover, namely from the 14th to the 20th day of the moon, should be exceeded contrary to law and right? A moon in its 21st or 22nd day is beyond the dominion of light, as it rises after midnight at that time; and when darkness overcomes light, it is considered impious to observe the solemnity of light. Why then do you, who are so wise—whose sacred genius, like the brilliant lights of ancient times, shines throughout the world—why do you observe a dark Easter? I must confess, I am astonished that this error in Gaul, as if it were Schynteneum, has not long since been corrected by you. Unless, perhaps—though I can scarcely believe it—I am to suppose that, since you have not corrected it, you approve of it.

⁶ On the other hand, however, your expertise may be more honorably excused if, fearing to expose yourself to the charge of Hermagoric novelty, you choose to remain content with the authority of your predecessors, and especially that of Pope Leo.

⁷ Do not, I beg you, rely only on humility or seriousness in such a matter, for these can often be deceived. It is far better, in this case, to have a living dog than a dead lion, for a living saint may correct what was not corrected by one who came before him. Know that our masters and the Irish ancients, who were philosophers and highly skilled in computations, did not accept Victorius; rather, they considered him more worthy of ridicule or excuse than of authority. Therefore, as a humble stranger rather than a presumptuous novice, I ask for the support of your judgment. Do not hesitate to send us the favor of your kindness without delay to calm the storm that surrounds us. After reading so many authors, I am not satisfied with the single statement of those bishops who say only, “We ought not to keep the Passover with the Jews.” For this is what Bishop Victor once declared, but none of the Eastern churches accepted his claim.

⁸ But this is the numbing backbone of Dagon; this is what the dotage of error drinks in. Of what value, I ask, is this sentence—so frivolous and so rude, and having no foundation in the testimonies of sacred Scripture—“We ought not to keep the Passover with the Jews”? What relevance does it have to the matter at hand? Are we to suppose that the rejected Jews still observe the Passover, when they are without a temple, outside Jerusalem, and Christ—whom it once prefigured—has been crucified by them? Or can it rightly be assumed that the 14th day of the moon for the Passover was their own invention, rather than acknowledging that it was appointed by God, who alone fully understood the mysterious significance of choosing the 14th day for the passage out of Egypt? Perhaps to wise men like you, this may be somewhat clearer than to others. As for those who raise this objection, though without any authority, let them reproach God for not having foreseen the obstinacy of the Jews by prescribing in the Law nine days of unleavened bread—if, indeed, He did not want us to observe the Passover with them—so that the beginning of our solemnity would not extend beyond the end of theirs. For if Easter is to be celebrated on the 21st or 22nd day, then from the 14th to the 22nd, nine days are counted—seven ordained by God and two added by men. But if it is permissible for men to add anything to God’s decree of their own accord, I ask whether this might not contradict that statement in Deuteronomy: “Behold,” He says, “the word which I give to you, you shall not add to it or take from it”.

⁹ But in writing all this more boldly than humbly, I realize that I have entangled myself in a difficult Euripus of presumption, perhaps lacking the skill to navigate my way out. Nor is it fitting for someone of my position or rank to suggest anything in the way of discussion to your great authority, and it seems absurd that my Western letters should presume to address you—who lawfully sit on the seat of the apostle and key-bearer Peter—on the subject of Easter. However, you should consider not so much insignificant me in this matter, but rather the many masters, both past and present, who support what I have put forward; think of yourself as engaging in discourse with them. For know that, though my speech may be clumsy and excessive, I speak with sincere devotion. It is for you, therefore, to either excuse or condemn Victorius, knowing that if you approve him, it will place you at odds with the faith of Jerome, who endorsed Anatolius—one who stands in opposition to Victorius. Thus, whoever follows one cannot accept the other. Let your vigilance, then, take care that, in approving the faith of one of these two opposing authorities, there is no discord between you and Jerome when you give your judgment. Otherwise, we will be caught in confusion, unsure whether to align with you or with him. Please have consideration for the weak in this matter, lest you cause the scandal of division. For I openly confess to you that anyone who contradicts the authority of Saint Jerome will be regarded as a heretic among the churches of the West, for they unhesitatingly conform their faith to his teachings on the Divine Scriptures. But let this suffice concerning Easter.

¹⁰ But I ask what your judgment is regarding those bishops whom you have described as simoniacal, and whom the writer Gildas calls pests. Should communion be maintained with them? For it is well known that there are many such in this province, which makes the issue even more serious. What, moreover, should be done concerning others who, having been defiled during their diaconate, are later elevated to the rank of bishops? There are some who, being troubled in conscience over these matters, have consulted with our humble selves, seeking to know with certainty whether they may minister without peril after such transgressions—whether by having obtained their rank through money or by falling into adultery during their diaconate. I refer specifically to secret adultery with those under their authority, which our teachers regard as no less grievous a sin.

¹¹ As to a third point of inquiry, I ask you, if it is not too much trouble, what should be done in the case of those monks who, driven by a desire for a closer vision of God or inflamed with longing for a more perfect life, abandon the places of their first conversion and, against the will of their abbots, are compelled by their fervor to either seek freedom or flee to the deserts. The author Vennianus once asked Gildas about such cases, and he responded most eloquently; yet, for one who is eager to learn, greater knowledge often brings greater fear. These matters, and much more which the brevity of a letter cannot contain, could have been addressed more humbly and clearly in a personal meeting. However, weakness of body and the care of my fellow-pilgrims keep me bound at home, though I long to come to you and drink from that spiritual vein of a living well—from the living water of knowledge flowing from heaven and springing up unto eternal life. And if my body could follow my mind, Rome might once again risk being overlooked; for, just as we read in the account of the learned Jerome—how certain individuals once came to Rome from the farthest reaches of the Heuline coast and, astonishingly, sought something outside of Rome—so too would I, with all due reverence for the relics of the saints, seek not Rome but you. For though I do not claim to be wise, I confess to being thirsty, and I would do the same if time and opportunity allowed.

¹² I have read your book on the Pastoral Rule, which, though concise in style, is profound in its teachings and rich with mysteries. I must confess, it is a work sweeter than honey to a soul in need. Therefore, I earnestly ask you to grant me, who thirsts for the wisdom you offer, your works on Ezekiel, which I have heard you have developed with remarkable insight. I have read Jerome’s six books on this prophet, but he has not covered the middle portion. If it pleases you, I would be deeply grateful if you could send to me in the city some of your other writings—specifically, the concluding expositions of one book, as well as the commentary on the Song of Songs from the place where it says, “I will go to the mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense” to the end. Please, provide concise comments, whether they are your own or drawn from others. Additionally, I humbly request that you expound the entire obscurity of Zechariah, unveiling its hidden meanings. By doing so, you will surely receive the gratitude of those in the West, who have long been blind to its mysteries.

¹³ I am aware that I make unreasonable demands and ask to hear profound truths—who could fail to recognize this? Yet it is equally true that you possess great wisdom and understand well the principle that much is expected from those who have been given much. Let your charity move you to respond to me; do not let the imperfections of my letter deter you from offering your insights. Any roughness in my words is due to my own limitations in expression, not to any lack of reverence, for in my heart, I hold you in the highest honor. It is my role to provoke, inquire, and request; it is yours to share freely what you have received freely. Use the talent entrusted to you for the benefit of others, and as Christ commands, give the bread of doctrine to those who ask. May peace be upon you and your household. Please forgive my boldness, blessed pope, in writing so plainly. I humbly ask you to include me—a most wretched sinner—in your holy prayers to our Lord, who is the hope of us all. I hardly think it necessary to commend to you my people, whom the Savior Himself deems worthy to be received, as they walk in His name. And if, as I have heard from your holy Candidus, you are inclined to reply that traditions upheld by ancient practice cannot be altered, I would only add this: while error may be ancient, truth, which corrects it, is even more ancient still.