Peter The Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch (471-488) : Rafa KOSI-SKI (Bia Ystok)

Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch
(471-488)
Rafa≥ KOSI—SKI (Bia≥ystok)
The figure of Peter the Fuller is not very widely known. Despite his
three times as bishop of Antioch in the years decisive for the outcome of
the Chalcedonian controversy, there are no writings preserved that could
be unquestionably attributed to him,1 whereas the contemporary sources
devote relatively scant attention to his person. Peter was a man, however,
who had initiated one of the serious conflicts of the era of Chalcedonian
disputes ñ the conflict over the Trishagion hymn. It seems to be needful,
therefore, to analyze the events of his life on the basis of the extant
sources. The body of these sources can be divided, in general, into two sig-
nificant traditions: one of them descends from Theodore Lector, while
the other from the tradition of the Roman see.
Theodore Lector and the related tradition

The work of Theodore Lector was written during the time he had
been at Euchaita, where he accompanied Macedonius, the patriarch of
Constantinople deposed in 511. His History encompassed the whole of the
history of the Church and was composed of three parts, of which the last
one is his own proper work continued until the death of Anastasius in 518.
It has only been preserved in parts that have survived to our time, as
excerpts from Epitome, from the beginning of the 7th century. Theodore
was a fervent Chalcedonian and his dogmatic views make him glorify in
his work the defenders of the Council of Chalcedon, while very critically
portraying the adversaries, including Peter the Fuller.2 Later authors had
readily drawn on Theodoreís work, including, first of all, Theophanes the
Confessor, Victor of Tunnuna, and the anonymous author of the
Synodicon Vetus.
1 Although M. VAN ESBROECK, The Memra on the Parrot by Isaac of Antioch, Journal of
Theological Studies 47 (1996) 469 believes that some anti-Chalcedonian
Armenian texts contain quotes from Peterís letters, there is no direct evidence
available to support this claim.
2 Cf. G. Ch. HANSEN, Einleitung, in: Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte,
herausgegeben von G. Ch. Hansen, Berlin 1971, IX-XXXIX; P. NAUTIN, ThÈodore
Lecteur et sa ´RÈunion de diffÈrentes histoireª de lí…glise, Revue des …tudes Byzantines
52 (1994) 213-243; M. WHITBY, The Church Historians and Chalcedon, in: Greek and
Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A. D., ed.
G. Marasco, Leiden ñ Boston 2003, 467-472; Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople (451-491). De l’histoire à la géo-ecclésiologie, Roma 2006, 549-552
and 622-648. Edition: Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte, herausgegeben von
G. Ch. Hansen, Berlin 1971. 49
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
Victor of Tunnuna was one of the six African bishops summoned to

Constantinople by the emperor Justinian. As a steadfast Chalcedonian, he
refused, in 543, to denounce the so-called Three Chapters, and was placed
by the emperor first at a monastery in Egypt, and later in Constantinople.
Very few facts about him are known from the period after Justinianís
death. During his stay in Constantinople, he had written a Latin chroni-
cle from the Creation to AD 566, of which only the last part, from the year
444 on, has survived. Victor presents a very concise account of the events
connected with Peter the Fuller, and as he had drawn primarily on
Theodore Lectorís work, he also shared his negative assessment of the
Antiochene bishop.3
Theophanes (died 817/818) was the founder and a monk at the
Megas Agros monastery on Mt. Sigriane. His work is a chronicle spanning
the period from AD 285 to 813. Attempting to verify the sources which
may have been used by Theophanes is a complicated issue. In all cer-
tainty, however, the fundamental source for the period of Zenoís reign
had been the history by Theodore Lector, whose Epitome was, to an extent,
recreated from Theophanesí work. The chronicler follows therefore
Theodoreís criticism in his own evaluation of Peter the Fuller.4
The Synodicon Vetus is an anonymous concise account of the church
synods encompassing the period from the apostolic times to AD 886, fin-
ished at the final deposition of the Constantinopolitan patriarch Photius.
The source had been written probably shortly afterwards, at the turn of
the 9th and 10th centuries. The author had drawn on various sources, and
in the section referring to the second half of the 5th century, he used the
information primarily from Theodore Lectorís work, and, in a lesser
degree, from the chronicle of Theophanes. He probably also had access
to the apocryphal letters to Peter the Fuller, concerning his addition to
the Trishagion hymn.5
In the tradition of Theodore Lector as well, there are also fragments
from the Ecclesiastical History by John Diacrinomenos, which has not sur-
vived in full, and written at the request of his uncle Sylvianus, bishop of
the Himyarites between the years 512 and 518. Theodore had consider-
3 Cf. A. PLACANICA, Da Cartagine a Bisanzio: per la biografia di Vittore Tunnunense,

Vetera Christianorum 26 (1989) 327-336 and idem, Introduzione, in: Vittore da
Tunnuna, Chronica. Chiesa e impero nellíet· di Giustiniano, a cura di A.
Placanica, Firenze 1997, XI-XXXI. Edition and Italian translation: Vittore da
Tunnuna, Chronica. Chiesa e impero nell’età di Giustiniano, a cura di A. Placanica,
Firenze 1997.
4 Cf. C. MANGO ñ R. SCOTT, Introduction, in: The Chronicle of Theophanes
Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813, Translated with
Introduction and Commentary by C. Mango and R. Scott with the assistance of G.
Greatrex, Oxford 1997, LII-C. Edition: Theophanis Chronographia, recensuit C. de
Boor, vol. I, Lipsiae 1883.
5 Cf. J. DUFFY ñ J. PARKER, Introduction, in: The Synodicon Vetus, Text, Translation,
and Notes by J. Duffy and J. Parker, Washington 1979, XIII-XV. Edition and
English translation: The Synodicon Vetus, Text, Translation, and Notes by J. Duffy
50 and J. Parker, Washington 1979.
Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch (471-488)
ably drawn on Johnís work in describing the events from the period of the
emperor Zenoís reign. The author had been writing his chronicle as a
supporter of Dioscorus and Eutyches, ill-disposed towards Nestorianism
and Chalcedonism.6
The Roman tradition

An alternative portrayal of Peter the Fullerís career is presented in the
work known as Gesta de nomine Acacii, which is a summary of how the
Christological dispute had developed in the Eastern part of the Empire,
with the purpose of explaining the question of the deposition of Acacius by
the Roman synod in the year 485. This source, reflecting the Roman point
of view, has been preserved as Pope Gelasiusí document, although, in all
probability, it had been written as early as towards the end of the pontificate
of Pope Felix III. In Gesta, there are several elements different from
Theodoreís account; above all, the source omits altogether the role of the
emperor Zeno during the times of the first and third episcopates of Peter
in Antioch.7 Certain items of information concerning Peter can also be
found in the acts of the Rome synod of October 485 and the papal corre-
spondence, particularly in Pope Gelasiusí letter to the bishops of Dardania.8
In the mid-6th century a chronicle was written by Liberatus, a Latin
Chalcedonian. He was an arch-deacon of Carthage, who had accompa-
nied his bishop Reparatus at Constantinople during the debates connect-
ed with the dispute over the Three Chapters, and then at the place of his
exile at Euchaita, where most probably the work of Liberatus had been
written. His goal was to inform the clergy of the West about the develop-
ment of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies in the East; in doing so, the
author expresses the Roman viewpoint, and is therefore negatively biased
towards Peter the Fuller, repeating with some minor modifications the
information contained in the Gesta de nomine Acacii.9
6 Cf. P. JANISZEWSKI, Jan Diakrinomenos i jego Historia koúcielna, in: ChrzeúcijaÒstwo

u schy≥ku staroøytnoúci. Studia ürÛd≥oznawcze, eds. T. Derda ñ E. Wipszycka,
Warszawa 1997, 63-78. The extant fragments published in: Theodoros Anagnostes,
Kirchengeschichte, herausgegeben von G. Ch. Hansen, Berlin 1971, 152-157.
7 Cf. O. G‹NTHER, Zu den ëGesta de nomine Acaciií, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 3
(1894) 146-149 (dates the work to circa 486); E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische
Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische Klasse, n. s. 10.4, M¸nchen
1934, 265-266 (dates the work to 488); P. NAUTIN, L’ ecclésiologie romaine à l’époque
du schisme d’Acace, in: …cole Pratique des Hautes …tudes, Ve section, annuaire
1966-1967, 74 (1966) 139 (dates the work to the beginning of 490). Edition:
Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab. a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII
datae, Avellana quae dicitur collectio, recensuit commentario critico instruxit indices
adiecit O. G¸nther, pars. I, Prolegomena. Epistulae I-CIV, Vindobonae 1895 (=
CA), no. 99, 440-453.
8 The acts of the Rome synod in: CA 70, 155-161. The letter of Pope Gelasius to the
bishops of Dardania: CA 95, 369-398.
9 Cf. E. SCHWARTZ, Praefatio, in: Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (= ACO),
tomus alter, Concilium Universale Chalcedonense, volumen quintum, Collectio 51
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
Other sources
Apart from the above-mentioned two main traditions referring to
Peter, there are also surviving mentions about him in many other sources.
The most important of these is in the Laudatio sancti Barnabae, by
Alexander, a 6th-century monk living in the Cypriot monastery situated
near the church where the tomb of the apostle Barnabas had been locat-
ed, to the north-west of Salamis. He had written his work between the
years 530 and 566, at the order of the curator of that shrine, and read it
out in the presence of the metropolitan of Cyprus. The last part of the
source deals with the issue of the controversy over Cyprusí independence
from the Antiochene patriarchate. As a staunch follower of the islandís
autocephalia, Alexander presents the figure of Peter the Fuller in a very
negative light, as he was believed to act for the re-subordination of Cyprus
under Antioch. The information concerning the finding of Barnabasí
relics during the dispute with Peter, which had been included in the work,
appears to have been used by Victor of Tunnuna.10
John Malalas is the Antioch-born author of the Chronicle in 18 books,
presenting the history since the Creation of the world. We cannot without
any doubt determine what the authorís religious views were, as in the
books devoted to the second half of the 5th century he seems to express
some anti-Chalcedonian influence, whereas towards the end of the work
(possibly written by a different author) he espouses explicitly
Chalcedonian views. Most likely, the part of the Chronicle describing the
events to AD 526 or 527, had been created while the author was still at
Antioch, whereas the part encompassing the reign of Justinian ñ in
Constantinople. Johnís Antiochene perspective makes it possible for him
to present the information on the events in the city during Zenoís reign,
which are not known from other sources.11
Evagrius Scholasticus, also born in Syria, was the Chalcedonian
author of the Ecclesiastical History in 6 books, reaching AD 594. For the
sangermanensis, edidit E. Schwartz, Berolini ñ Lipsiae 1936, XVI-XVIII; M.
WHITBY, The Church Historians, 472-477. Published in: ACO II, 5, 98-141.
10 Cf. P. VAN DEUN, PrÈliminaires, in: Hagiographica Cypria. Sancti Barnabae
Laudatio auctore Alexandro Monacho et Sanctorum Bartholomaei et Barnabae
Vita e Menologio imperiali deprompta, editae curante P. Van Deun, Vita Sancti
Auxibii, edita curante J. Noret, Turnhout ñ Leuven 1993, 15-21; B. KOLLMANN,
Joseph Barnabas. His Life and Legacy, trans. by M. Henry, Collegeville 2004, 58-59
and B. KOLLMANN, Einleitung, in: Alexander Monachus, Laudatio Barnabae.
Lobrede auf Barnabas, eingeleitet von B. Kollmann, ¸bersetzt von B. Kollmann
und W. Deuse, Turnhout 2007, 56-60. Edition: Hagiographica Cypria. Sancti
Barnabae Laudatio auctore Alexandro Monacho et Sanctorum Bartholomaei et Barnabae
Vita e Menologio imperiali deprompta, editae curante P. Van Deun, Vita Sancti Auxibii,
edita curante J. Noret, Turnhout ñ Leuven 1993.
11 Cf. Studies in John Malalas, ed. by E. Jeffreys with B. Croke and R. Scott, Sydney
1990 and Recherches sur la chronique de Jean Malalas, t. I, ÈditÈ par J. Beaucamp, avec
la collaboration de S. Agusta-Boularot, A.-M. Bernardi, B. Cabouret, E. Caire,
Paris 2004. Edition: Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, recensuit I. Thurn, Berlin 2000
(Greek text); V. ISTRIN, Chronika Joanna Malaly w slavyanskom perevode, Pietrograd
52 1914 (Slavic translation of the books 15-18).
events from the reign of the emperor Zeno Evagrius had considerably
drawn on the chronicle by Zacharias Rhetor. Although he had resorted to
the archives of the patriarchate of Antioch, the author devoted surpris-
ingly little space to Peter the Fuller and his activity in Syria.12
Peter is also mentioned by several sources of anti-Chalcedonian ori-
gin. One of the most significant is the History by Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor,
the only source citing the synodal letter written on the occasion of Peterís
re-election to the Antiochene see in 485. The History was written in the
490s, however, the source has survived only in the Syrian translation of 569
by an anonymous author, the so-called Pseudo-Zacharias. Zacharias was
closely associated with the later Antiochene patriarch Severus, and he had
written his history from the anti-Chalcedonian point of view, portraying
Peter in a favourable light and presenting a critical view of the
Chalcedonian bishops of Antioch.13
Some information referring to Peter can also be found in the chron-
icle by John of Nikiou, in Cyril of Scythopolisí Vita Sabae, in treatises and
epistles of the foremost opponents of Chalcedon active at the turn of the
5th century, with Philoxenus of Maboug and Severus of Antioch, and also
in the Plerophoria by John Rufus.14 Moreover, there is a collection of ten
12 Cf. P. ALLEN, Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian, Louvain 1981, 1-20; M.
WHITBY, Introduction, in: The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, trans-
lated with an introduction by M. Whitby, Liverpool 2000, XIII-LX; M. WHITBY, The
Church Historians, 480-492. Edition: The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the scho-
lia, edited with introduction, critical notes, and indices by J. Bidez and L.
Parmentier, London 1898.
13 Cf. P. ALLEN, Zachariah Scholasticus and the Historia Ecclesiastica of Evagrius
Scholasticus, Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1980) 471-488; M. WHITBY, The
Church Historians, 459-466; Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 544-549.
The text published in: Historia Ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori vulgo adscripta, inter-
pretatus est E. W. Brooks, tomus I et II, Lovanii 1924 (CSCO, scriptores Syri, series
tertia, tomus V et VI).
14 The edition and French translation of the Chronicle by John of Nikiou:
Chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou, texte éthiopien, ed. par H. Zotenberg, Paris
1883, English translation: The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, trans. by R. H.
Charles, London ñ Oxford 1916. Vita Sabae published in: E. SCHWARTZ, Kyrillos von
Skythopolis, Leipzig 1939, 85-200. Philoxenus, The letter to the monks of TellíAdda pub-
lished in: I. GUIDI, La lettera di Filosseno ai monaci di TellíAdd‚, Roma 1884, 449-501.
Severus of Antioch, The letter to Ammonios published in: The Sixth Book of Selected
Letters of Severus Patriarch of Antioch, vol. II, edited and translation by E. W. Brooks,
Oxford 1903, 253-257; Severus of Antiochís Homily 125 on the Trishagion pub-
lished in: Les ‚Homiliae cathedrales’ de Sévère d’Antioche. Traduction syriaque de
Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies CXX à CXXV, éditées et traduites par M. Brière, Paris
1960 (Patrologia Orientalis (= PO) 29); The Plerophoria by John Rufus published
in: Jean Rufus, PlÈrophories. TÈmoignages et rÈvÈlations contre le Concile de ChalcÈdoine,
version syriaque et traduction franÁaise ÈditÈes par F. Nau, Paris 1911 (PO 8).
Other sources: A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts = A Nestorian Collection of
Christological Texts. Cambridge University Library Ms. Oriental 1319, Edited and
Translated by L. Abramowski and A. E. Goodman, volume II, Introduction,
Translation, Indexes, Cambridge 1972; Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan = Kitab Al-ëUnvan.
Histoire universelle Ècrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj, ÈditÈe et traduite en
franÁais par A. Vasiliev, (seconde partie (II)), Paris 1912, 139-175 (PO 8);
Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum = Georgius Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum, 53
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
letters addressed to Peter the Fuller by Pope Felix, archbishop of

Constantinople Acacius and other bishops, pertaining to the question of
the Trishagion. This correspondence is, however, not authentic; it was cre-
ated by pro-Chalcedonian monks from the monastery of the Sleepless
Monks, near Constantinople.15
The supposed authorship of Pseudo-Dionysius’ letters

In a series of articles written in the 1960s and 1970s Rudolf RIEDINGER
expressed his support for the view held by the Dominican monk Michel
LEQUIEN at the beginning of the 18th century, who claimed that the author
of the Pseudo-Dionysiusí letters was Peter the Fuller.16 RIEDINGER had
ab I. Bekkero suppletus et emendatus, tomus prior, Bonnae 1838; Chronicon ad

annum Domini 846 pertinens = Chronica minora, interpretatus est I. Guidi, E. W.
Brooks, J.-B. Chabot, Parisiis ñ Lipsiae 1903 (CSCO, Scriptores Syri, series tertia,
t. IV), 121-169; Chronicon Iacobi Edesseni = Chronica minora, interpretatus est I.
Guidi, E. W. Brooks, J.-B. Chabot, Parisiis ñ Lipsiae 1903 (CSCO, Scriptores Syri,
series tertia, t. IV), 197-241; Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum = Incerti auctoris
Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum, interpretatus est J.-B. Chabot, tomus I,
Lovanii 1949 (CSCO, Scriptores Syri, series tertia, t. I); Codex Iustinianus = Corpus
Iuris Civilis, editio stereotypa octava, volumen secundum, Codex Iustinianus, recog-
novit P. Krueger, Berolini 1906; Damascius, Vita Isidori = Photius, Bibliothèque, texte
Ètabli et traduit par R. Henry, tome VI, îCodicesî 242-245, Paris 1971, 8-56;
Facundus of Hermiane, Pro defensione trium capitulorum = Facundi episcopi ecclesiae
Hermianensis opera omnia, edidit J.-M. ClÈment et R. Vander Plaetse, Turnholti
1974; John of Damascus, Expositio Fidei = Die Schriften des Johannes von Damascus,
Band II, Expositio Fidei, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1973, (= Patristische Texte und
Studien 12); John of Antioch = Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia chronica,
introduzione, edizione critica e traduzione a cura di U. Roberto, Berlin 2005
(= Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Band
154); Joshua Stylites = The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, translated with notes
and introduction by F. R. Trombley and J. W. Watt, Liverpool 2000; Michael the
Syrian = Chronique de Michel le Syrien: Patriarche Jacobite díAntioche (1166-1198), Èdi-
tee pour le premiÈre fois et traduite en franÁais par J.-B. Chabot, tome II (livre
VIII-XI), Paris 1901; Nikephorus Kallistus = Nicefor Kallistos Xanthopoulos, Ecclesiastica
Historia, in: Patrologia Graeca, tome 147; Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus =
Corpus Dionysiacum, vol. 1, De Divinibus Nominibus, ed. B. R. Suchla, Berlin ñ New
York 1990 (= Patristische Texte und Studien 33); Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica
hierarchia = Corpus Dionysiacum, vol. 2, De Coelesti Hierarchia, De Ecclesiastica
Hierarchia, De Mystica Theologia, Epistulae, ed. G. Heil ñ A. M. Ritter, Berlin ñ New
York 1991, 63-132 (= Patristische Texte und Studien 36); Pseudo-Dionysius, Ep. =
Corpus Dionysiacum, vol. 2, De Coelesti Hierarchia, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, De
Mystica Theologia, Epistulae, ed. G. Heil ñ A. M. Ritter, Berlin ñ New York 1991, 155-
210 (= Patristische Texte und Studien 36).
15 Cf. the introduction by Eduard Schwartz in: ACO III, pp. XI-XIII; E. SCHWARTZ,
Publizistische Sammlungen, 287-300 and A. GRILLMEIER with T. HAINTHALER, Christ in
Christian Tradition, vol. II, part II, The Church of Constantinople in the Fifth
Century, translated by P. Allen, J. Cawte, London 1995, 253. Edition: ACO III, 6-
25 and 217-231. The objective of the Sleepless Monks was to create a body of fic-
titious documents that were meant to aid them in their struggle against the addi-
tion to the Trishagion, by Peter the Fuller.
16 Cf. a number of articles by Utto (= Rudolf) Riedinger: cf. U. RIEDINGER, Pseudo-
Dyonisios Areopagites, Pseudo-Kaisarios und die Akoimeten, Byzantinische Zeitschrift
54 52 (1959) 276-296; idem, Petros der Walker von Antiochia als Verfasser der pseudo-
drawn attention, first of all, to the similarities of the liturgical innovations,

which are attributed to Peter, to the relevant passages in the letters of
Pseudo-Dionysius. As a matter of fact, public consecration of myron, epi-
clesis over the baptismal water, and recitation of the Creed during the
Eucharist, are mentioned in the Church Hierarchy.17 In turn, the invoca-
tion to the Virgin Mary Theotokos is described by Pseudo-Dionysius in the
work On the Names of God.18 Furthermore, one can find in Pseudo-
Dionysiusí letters an accolade of the apostle Peter,19 which, in RIEDINGERís
opinion, was meant to strengthen his claims to the Antiochene see, whilst
his justification of the disputes with the Greeks20 was to serve as a reply to
the accusations levelled by the neo-Platonists of Athens, about a certain
bishop named Peter as a corrupt and shameless man.21 The author also
connects the phenomenon of the solar eclipse from Pseudo-Dionysiusí
correspondence22 with the eclipse that had reportedly occurred on 14
January 484, which is linked to the death of Proclus. From De malorum sub-
sistentia by Proclus, Pseudo-Dionysius had also borrowed his conception of
evil,23 which was an argument for RIEDINGER to support the thesis that
prior to his joining the monastery Peter the Fuller had been one of
Proclusí disciples. According to RIEDINGER, Peter had written the works in
question under the name of Dionysius Areopagite at the time of his exile,
first at the monastery of the Sleepless Monks, then at Euchaita. The whole
thesis described above, as attractive as it may be, cannot be directly veri-
fied in the light of the sources available, and has been questioned by the
scholars as improbable.24
dionysischen Schriften, Salzburger Jahrbuch f¸r Philosophie 5/6 (1961-1962) 135-

156; idem, Der Verfasser der pseudo-dionysischen Schriften, Zeitschrift f¸r
Kirchengeschichte 54 (1964) 146-152 and idem, Akoimeten, in: Theologische
Realenzyklop‰die, vol. II, Berlin ñ New York 1978, 149-151.
17 Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia 4, 2 (consecration of myron); ibidem,
De ecclesiastica hierarchia 2,7 (epiclesis over the baptismal water); ibidem, De ecclesi-
astica hierarchia 3,2 and 3,3,7 (recitation of the symbol of faith at the Eucharist).
18 Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus 3,2. On the liturgical innovations attrib-
uted to Peter, see below.
19 Pseudo-Dionysius, Ep. 10 to John on the island of Patmos.
20 Pseudo-Dionysius, Ep. 7 to Policarpus.
21 Damascius, Vita Isidori 170, 39.
22 Pseudo-Dionysius, Ep. 7 to Policarpus.
23 Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus 4,19-35.
24 Cf. J.-M. HORNUS, Les recherches dionysiennes de 1955 a 1960, Revue díhistoire et
de philosophie religieuses 41 (1961) 56-64; L. PERRONE, Pietro il Fullone, in:
Dizionario patristico e di antichita cristiana 2 (1983) col. 2794-2795; A. SOLIGNAC,
Pierre le Foulon, in: Dictionnaire de SpiritualitÈ 12, 2 (1986) col. 1588-1590; P.
ROREM ñ J. C. LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus. Annotating
the Areopagite, Oxford 1998, 9-10 and K.-H. UTHEMANN, Petros der Walker, in:
Lexikon f¸r Theologie und Kirche 8 (1999) col. 143. 55
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
Peter the Fuller’s background and early years

We do not have much information on the life of Peter the Fuller
before his coming to Antioch at the turn of the 460s and 470s.25 We do
not know where he had come from, when he was born, or who his parents
were. The later account in the Chronicon ad annum Domini 846 pertinens
attempts to explain the origin of his cognomen by mentioning that his
parents had been fullers by profession.26 However, the Laudatio in ho-
nour of St Barnabas and a collection of Nestorian Christological texts link
the cognomen with the profession performed by Peter himself.27
According to the information contained in the Gesta de nomine Acacii
and in the work of Liberatus, Peter had been in charge of one of the
monasteries at Constantinople, which he however had to leave due to
some more precisely unidentified ìcrimesî (crimina) and then went to
Antioch.28 Alexander the Monk in the Laudatio in honour of the apostle
Barnabas and the anonymous author of the Synodicon Vetus state this infor-
mation more precisely, mentioning that Peter the Fuller was a monk at
the monastery of the Sleepless Monks.29 On the other hand, Theodore
Lector mentions that he had been a presbyter at the church of the martyr
Bassa at Chalcedon, from where he had come to Antioch with Zeno.30
John Malalas also associates him with the church at Chalcedon, but
according to his account, Peter was not a presbyter but a paramonarios of
St Euphemiaís church there.31 Agapius, in his chronicle, mentions that
Peter was the head of the monastery at Chalcedon.32
Both the Roman tradition and Theodore Lectorís account draw, as a
matter of fact, on the Constantinopolitan sources, and their items of
25 Cf. L. PERRONE, Pietro il Fullone, col. 2794.

26 Cf. Chronicon ad annum Domini 846 pertinens, 165.
27 Cf. Laudatio S. Barnabae, 108 and A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts, 19.
28 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450 and Liberatus 17, 122.
29 Laudatio S. Barnabae, 108; likewise, Synodicon Vetus 98. On the monastery of the
Akoimetoi, see J. PARGOIRE, Un mot sur les acémètes, Échos d’Orient 2 (1898-1899)
304-308, 365-372; idem, Rufinianes, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 8 (1899) 429-477;
V. GRUMEL, Acémètes, in: Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, vol. I, Paris 1937, col. 169-
175; R. RIEDINGER, Akoimeten, 148-153.
30 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 390 and Theophanes AM 5956. On the church of St
Bassa, see J. PARGOIRE, Sainte-Bassa de Chalcédoine, Échos d’Orient 6 (1903) 315-
317 and R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin, première partie:
Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecuménique, vol. II, Les églises et les
monastères des grands centres byzantins (Bithynie, Hellespont, Latros, Galèsios,
Trébizonde, Athènes, Thessalonique), Paris 1975, 33-34.
31 John Malalas XV, 1. On the church of St Euphemia, see R. JANIN, La gÈographie
ecclÈsiastique de líEmpire byzantin, 31-33. Eduard Schwartz links both of these items
of information, saying in general that Peter was a presbyter and paramonarios of
the church at Chalcedon, and at the same time archimandrite of a certain
monastery, cf. E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 182.
32 Cf. Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 420. Cf. also A Nestorian Collection of Christological
Texts, 19, where there is general information that Peter had been the head of
56 some monastery.
information supplement each other, aside from the information on the

Sleepless Monks. The Roman tradition, in its description of Peter, is
based directly on Acaciusí letter from Constantinople, written in 477, to
pope Simplicius,33 and therefore a few years only after Peterís first tumul-
tuous attempt at acceding to the Antiochene see. The account as stated
by the Roman tradition should therefore be more credible than
Theodoreís or Alexander the Monkís versions. The modern scholars,
however, link the above-mentioned accounts of Theodore and the
Roman tradition with the information from the Laudatio, assuming that
after Peter had been removed from the monastery of the Sleepless Monks
for the views he had held, he became a presbyter at the church of the
martyr Bassa at Chalcedon.34 If, however, Peter had been in charge of
one of the Constantinopolitan monasteries, it could not have been the
monastery of the Sleepless Monks, as the head of the monastery at that
time was Marcellus the Akoimetos.35 Besides, it is difficult to reconcile
the account of the Laudatio, which mentions the monastery of the
Sleepless Monks located, at that time, at Irenaion, north of Chalcedon,
with the Roman tradition directly mentioning a monastery in
Constantinople. Probably, Alexander the Monk had combined the infor-
mation about Peterís stay at the Sleepless Onesí monastery between the
years 471 and 475, and his earlier life.36 As it is confirmed that in 536
there had existed a monastery at the church of St Bassa at Chalcedon, it
is possible that it had already functioned several decades earlier and that
Peter had been the man in charge of it, for which however there is no
direct evidence, except for a vague mention in Agapius. One way or the
other, at the end of the 460s Peter the Fuller had committed some
unidentified crimes, in the result of which he was expelled from the
monastery. The Gesta do not specify whether they concerned some dog-
matic issues, or if Peter was formally condemned, albeit it may be
33 Cf. E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 162 (document 19). Acaciusí letter

has survived only as a summary in Gesta. Pope Simpliciusí reply of 9 October 477
in: E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 121-122. At the time of writing his let-
ter Acacius had not yet known about the death of Timothy Ailuros on 31 July 477,
hence it had probably taken place in the first half of that year, cf. V. GRUMEL, Les
regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I, Les actes des patriarches, fasc. I,
Les regestes de 381 à 715, Paris 1932, 66 (no. 151).
34 Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, in: Dictionnaire de thÈologie catholique 12 (1935)
col. 1933; H. BACHT, Die Rolle des orientalischen Mˆnchtums in den kirchenpolitischen
Auseinandersetzungen um Chalkedon (431-519), in: Das Konzil von Chalkedon.
Geschichte und Gegenwart, herausgegeben von A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht, Band II,
Entscheidung um Chalkedon, W¸rzburg 1953, 260; Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 169-170.
35 On Marcellus Akoimetos, see R. KOSI—SKI, AGIWSUNH KAI EXOUSIA.
KonstantynopolitaÒscy úwiÍci mÍøowie i w≥adza w V wieku po Chr., Warszawa 2006, 203-
207.
36 Cf. A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Band
2.3, Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451-600, Freiburg 2004, 302, who
have noticed the paradox of Peterís relations with the Sleepless Monks, staunch
supporters of the Council of Chalcedon. 57
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
assumed that the author would not have failed to mention the fact of
such a condemnation.37
A different view of Peterís background has been proposed by Rudolf
RIEDINGER, who, as already mentioned above, had identified the author of
the Pseudo-Dionysiusí writings with Peter and put forward the hypothesis
that prior to his conversion to Christianity he had been a member of
Proclusí philosophical group in Athens, whose adherents had been fol-
lowing certain ascetic practices. Around the year 465, Peter had met the
Sleepless Monks, had been baptized and entered their monastery to
become a monk and later on a deacon. The cognomen ìfullerî that he
had received, should be, in RIEDINGERís opinion, interpreted symbolically.
It was apparently to refer to Peterís task of teaching catechumens with
which he had been entrusted. This hypothesis of Peter the Fullerís early
years, as well as the entire hypothesis proposed by RIEDINGER, have been
repudiated by historiography.38
The first episcopate

Towards the end of the 460s Peter had arrived at Antioch. The
detailed account of that event was presented by Theodore Lector, who
mentioned that after Zenoís appointment as magister militum per Orientem,
Peter joined his retinue and proceeded with him to Antioch.39 The
Roman tradition only mentions Peterís escape to Antioch after he had
committed a crime, and does not link this fact chronologically in any way
to Zenoís appointment as commander-in-chief in the East.40
In accordance with Theodoreís chronology, Peterís coming to
Antioch may have taken place no sooner than at the end of 469, when
Zeno had headed east,41 whereas the subsequent turbulent events, which
were connected with Peter the Fullerís stay in the city, could not have hap-
37 Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1933; H. BACHT, Die Rolle des orientalischen
Mˆnchtums, 260; L. PERRONE, Pietro il Fullone, col. 2794; A. GRILLMEIER ñ T.
HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 297-298 and Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 170. Incidentally, we know the name of one of Peterís disciples and
fellow monks from his monastery years. It was Peter the Isaurian, bishop of
Titiopolis, who had been sent by Peter the Fuller, after his return to the bishopís
throne in 485, to John Rufus to persuade him to return to Antioch, cf. John Rufus,
Plerophoriae 22, 47-48. Unfortunately, the author, describing Peter the Isaurian as
a synkellos (suvgkello~) of Peter the Fuller, does not say precisely whether it con-
cerned the period before 469, or during the time following the first deposition of
the Antiochene bishop, which he had spent at the monastery of the Sleepless
Monks at Irenaion.
38 Cf. notes 16 and 24 above.
39 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 390; Theophanes AM 5956; likewise, Synodicon Vetus
98.
40 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 95, 450: Antiochiam fugisse; Liberatus 17, 122:
Antiochiam refugisse.
41 Cf. R. KOSI—SKI, Poczπtek kariery Tarasikodissy-Zenona, in: Byzantina Europaea.
KsiÍga jubileuszowa ofiarowana profesorowi Waldemarowi Ceranowi, eds. M.
58 Kokoszko ñ M. J. Leszka, £Ûdü 2007, 300.
pened later than early spring 471, when the emperor Leo issued the law
forbidding the Antiochene monks to engage in theological matters. It
was, most probably, the emperorís response to the turmoil that Peter had
caused in the church there.42
After his coming to the city on the Orontes Peter won over the support
of a group of people considered by Theodore Lector and Theophanes as
followers of Apollinarius.43 That label was probably to indicate the local
Eutychians, and therefore anti-Chalcedonians.44 Monks must have enjoyed
some considerable influence among the members of that group, which is
implied by the content of the imperial law. Was Peter, therefore, an active
anti-Chalcedonian at that time? Even though Lorenzo PERRONE calls him
the first Monophysite patriarch of Antioch,45 Aloys GRILLMEIER is right to
notice that for the period of his first episcopate we do not find any men-
tions suggesting Peterís hostile attitude towards the Council of Chalcedon.
We only know of Peterís anathema against those who do not believe in
ìcrucified Godî, which indicates his hostility towards Nestorianism.46
Theodore Lector and Alexander the Monk, on the other hand, draw atten-
tion to his associations with Apollinarianism,47 while the later leaders of
the anti-Chalcedonian movement, in particular Severus of Antioch will
treat Peter with great distrust.48
The turmoil incited by Peterís followers had led to the bishop
Martyriusí departure from Antioch,49 and his coming to Constantinople
42 See Codex Iustinianus, I, 3, 29. Eduard Schwartz concluded that the beginning
of the pontificate of Peterís successor, Julian, could not have taken place later
than in 470, cf. E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 182, note 3. The idea that
there is a connection between the Antiochene events inspired by Peter the Fuller
and the instituted law has also been expressed by P. T. R. GRAY, The Defense of
Chalcedon in the East (451-553), Leiden 1979, 23.
43 Theodore Lector, Epitome 390, and Theophanes AM 5956. Likewise, Synodicon Vetus 98.
44 Also E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 182. Cf. R. DEVREESSE, Le Patriarcat
d’Antioche depuis la paix de l’Église jusqu’à la conquête arabe, Paris 1945, 65; G.
DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton
ñ New Jersey 1961, 485 and A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 298.
G. Fritz and William Frend accept the literal meaning of Theodoreís words,
believing that Peter received support from the adherents of Apollinariusí views,
who were still numerous at Antioch, cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1934 and W.
H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the
Church in the Fifth and Sixth Century, Oxford 1972, 167.
45 Lorenzo Perrone describes him as ìprimo patriarca monofisita di Antiochiaî,
cf. L. PERRONE, Pietro il Fullone, col. 2794, and Cornelia Horn ìthe first anti-chal-
cedonian patriarch of Antiochî, cf. C. B. HORN, Asceticism and Christological
Controversy in Fifth-Century Palestine. The Career of Peter the Iberian, Oxford 2006, 42.
46 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 390 and Theophanes AM 5956.
47 Cf. Laudatio S. Barnabae, 110, with the information that by including the addi-
tion to the Trishagion, Peter had tried to gain favour with the followers of
Apollinarius.
48 Cf. A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 301-302.
49 On Martyrios, see S. J. VOICU, Martiri di Antiochia, in: Dizionario patristico e di
antichita cristiana 2 (1983) col. 2154. 59
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
in the hopes of finding some support there. Seizing the opportunity,

Peter replaced Martyrius and was consecrated as bishop of Antioch50.
Alexander the Monk writes that at first Peter had attempted to defame
Martyrius before the emperor and others, accusing him of
Nestorianism.51 The information in the Laudatio is confirmed by the anti-
Chalcedonian tradition;52 John Rufus in his Plerophoriae states in explicit
terms that Martyrius had been banished for ìflagrant heresyî.53
Therefore, the turmoil caused by Peter had probably led to Martyriusí
escape from the city, and his turning to Constantinople not only to seek
support there but also to justify and clear himself of the allegations of
being a supporter of Nestorianism.54
In Constantinople, Martyrius had been cleared of the accusations and
gained strong support of the patriarch Gennadius, and thanks to him the
emperor Leo I had ordered that Martyrius should be restored to the see
of Antioch and Peter the Fuller deposed and sent into exile at the Oasis
in Upper Egypt.55 In order to quell the opposition against Martyrius, the
emperor had also issued, on 1 June 471, the law addressed at Zeno, which
prohibited the monks from leaving their monasteries and staying at
Antioch, getting involved in theological issues and inciting any distur-
bances.56
These events raise the question of Zenoís role in the ousting of
Martyrius. Theodore Lector, ill-disposed towards the future emperor,
writes that he had been Peterís protector, aided him in removing
Martyrius and taking over the see of Antioch. John Diacrinomenos states
that Zeno had gone as far as to pressure the bishops assembled for the
synod at Seleucia so that they elect and consecrate Peter as bishop.57 That
50 Theodore Lector, Epitome, 392; Theophanes, AM 5956; Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 420,
writes that Peter had deceived the Antiochenes with the false information that his
election is in accord with the emperor Leoís will. On the other hand, Alexander
the Monk stresses that the inhabitants of Antioch themselves, at least the local
Apollinarians, had asked for Peterís appointment, cf. Laudatio S. Barnabae, 109.
51 Laudatio S. Barnabae, 109.
52 Pseudo-Zacharias, IV, 11; John Rufus, Plerophoriae, 89, 145, 147. Cf. A. GRILLMEIER
ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 294.
53 John Rufus, Plerophoriae, 89, 144: hÈrÈsie Èvidente. G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch
in Syria, 486 believes that Martyrius had left Antioch at his own will and gone to
Constantinople alarmed at the increasing opposition inspired by Peter.
54 Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1934.
55 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii, 25, CA 99, 450; Liberatus 17, 122; Theodore Lector,
Epitome 392, Theophanes AM 5956 and Synodicon Vetus 98. Cf. also Laudatio S.
Barnabae, 109.
56 Codex Iustinianus, 1, I, 3, 29. Cf. also an analysis in: A. S. SCARCELLA, La legis-
lazione di Leone I, Milano 1997, 276-282.
57 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 390; Theophanes AM 5956; John Diacrinomenos, Epitome
540. The scholars generally give credence to Theodoreís tradition and assume
that Zeno had been Peterís patron, actively supporting him in his attempts to take
over the Antiochene see, cf. for instance E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen,
60 182; G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1934; R. DEVREESSE, Le Patriarcat díAntioche, 65;
synod had convened probably with the purpose of passing a judgement

over Martyriusí alleged pro-Nestorian sympathies. These accounts point
out to Zenoís active role in the events. However, the Roman tradition,
both the Gesta de nomine Acacii and Liberatus, does not inform, at all, of
any Zenoís involvement in favour of Peter the Fuller. This lack of infor-
mation on the part of the Roman tradition can be yet explained by the
fact that in the accounts referring to the years 470-471, it draws on the let-
ter of patriarch Acacius to Simplicius of 477. Certainly, Acacius did not
have any reasons for underscoring the role of the ruling emperor in ele-
vating to the Antiochene see a man regarded as a heretic.
Nevertheless, a different scenario of what had really happened
seems more likely. After he had arrived at Antioch, Zeno encountered
the turmoil and the accusations levelled at Martyrius of his alleged
preaching of Nestorian heresy.58 In order to resolve the tense situation,
he had taken steps to call a synod to be held at Seleucia, where Martyrius
was condemned and his successor, Peter the Fuller, consecrated. Zeno,
in conformity with the synodís decision, had made it possible for him to
take over duties at Antioch, especially as, in all probability, Peter had
garnered a great deal of support among the inhabitants of the city.59
Those events had probably taken place at the end of 470 or the begin-
ning of 471, as Martyriusí intervention in Constantinople may be dated
to early spring 471. At the capital, Martyrius had appealed to Gennadius,
patriarch of Constantinople, who cleared him, possibly at the endemousa
synod,60 of the accusation of heresy. The bishop had gained the ground
for returning to the throne at Antioch,61 while Gennadius had more-
over obtained a legal sanction directed at Zeno on June 1, 471 and
G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 486; W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the

Monophysite Movement, 167; A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 298;
K.-H. UTHEMANN, Petros der Walker, col. 143; Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 169-171; P. NORTON, Episcopal Elections 250-600. Hierarchy and
Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007, 93.
58 Laudatio S. Barnabae, 109 mentions that Peter informed Zeno of the threat of
escalating unrest if Martyrius were not to be deposed. Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 171, note 376 believes that summoning the synod at Seleucia by
Zeno proves that Peter had the will to act in strict adherence to the canons.
59 Cf. Laudatio S. Barnabae, 109.
60 The Gesta and Liberatus remind of the fact that Peter the Fuller had been ban-
ished from Antioch on the grounds of the sentence issued by the bishops. It may
indicate an endemousa synod or a synod of bishops of the East. Cf. Gesta de nomine
Acacii 25, CA 99, 450 and Liberatus 17, 122. The verdict concerning Peter is also
mentioned by Alexander the Monk; he states that the basis for passing the verdict
was Peterís position against the Orthodox faith, and first of all his introduction of
the Theopaschite addition to the Trishagion, cf. Laudatio S. Barnabae, 110. The
author of the Laudatio, however, seems to blend into one the events from the two
episcopates of Peter, and therefore the verdict in question may in fact refer to the
situation from the year 476. Cf. A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus,
299.
61 G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 487 is of the opinion that the imperial
verdict had been supported with the decision of the Antiochene synod. 61
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
aimed against Martyriusí opponents and Peter the Fuller himself, who
was to be banished to the Oasis in Egypt. It was probably Zeno who had
to enforce both decisions of Leo I.62
Little is known about Peterís activity during the first period of his
tenure at Antioch. Theodore Lector, followed by Theophanes, say that it
was then that he had introduced a Theopaschite ñ in their opinion ñ addi-
tion to the Trishagion. Peter the Fuller had added to the known version of
the hymn: ìHoly God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortalî, the words ìwho was
crucified for usî.63 The author of the Synodicon Vetus, representing the
same tradition, writes that Peter had introduced the addition formally at
the Antiochene synod.64
The deposition of Peter, which amounted in fact to as much as the
restoration of Martyrius, had led to a new wave of turmoil at Antioch,
which forced the bishop, accused of pro-Nestorian sympathies, into res-
ignation. We do not know practically anything about his successor,
Julian. He must have been a man much less controversial than his pre-
decessors, as we do not hear of any disturbances in the aftermath of his
election.65
As we have already mentioned, Peter was allegedly banished to the
Great Oasis in Egypt, the traditional place of exile for bishops.66 However,
the Synodicon Vetus says that Peter the Fuller had managed to escape and
find a refuge at the monastery of the Sleepless Monks near Con-
stantinople.67 On the other hand, the Gesta, followed by Liberatus, state
that Peter had fled from the exile and appeared at the capital, where he
subsequently had pledged that he would not ever cause any disturbance.68
62 Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 171, note 376 believes that Peter
became bishop only after Martyrius had finally resigned in the middle of 471, yet
he offers no convincing arguments to support it. The law of 1 June of that year
issued by the emperor Leo, can be no doubt linked with Peterís final banishment,
which must have taken place in late spring, and not as suggested by Ph. BLAUDEAU,
Alexandrie et Constantinople, 171, note 377, only several months later. On the other
hand, G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 486-487 believes that Peter had
been bishop of Antioch twice in that period: first, when he took over the see dur-
ing Martyriusí absence, and then again after his resignation. There is no evidence
to support this hypothesis, either.
63 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 390, and Theophanes AM 5956. On the hymn and
Peterís addition thereto, see below.
64 Cf. Synodicon Vetus 98. G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 485 doubts
whether Peter had really summoned a synod in order to accept the new version
of the Trishagion.
65 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 392 and Theophanes AM 5956. Cf. G. DOWNEY, A
History of Antioch in Syria, 487 and A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus,
299.
66 Cf. I. MILEWSKI, Depozycje i zsy≥ki biskupÛw w Cesarstwie Wschodniorzymskich (lata
325-451), GdaÒsk 2008, 357-366.
67 Cf. Synodicon Vetus 98. Theodore Lector, Epitome 392 and Theophanes AM 5956
mention generally that Peter had evaded the exile thanks to his flight, even
though Theophanes AM 5967 also says that until Basiliscusí usurpation, he had
62 stayed hidden at the monastery of the Sleepless Monks.
Most probably, therefore, the sentence of exile at the Oasis had been
repealed by the emperor on the condition that Peter would withdraw
from public activity and lead a reclusive life at the monastery.69 Perhaps
the change had been the result of the influence exerted by Zeno, who had
reportedly returned to Constantinople in the second half of 471. I believe
it would be erroneous, however, to overestimate the relations between
those two figures, especially as after his accession to the throne, Zeno did
not restore Peter as bishop.
The second episcopate

The turning point of Peter the Fullerís career came with the usurpation
of Basiliscus at the beginning of 475.70 With his exile punishment revoked,
Timothy Ailuros, patriarch of Alexandria, decided to strengthen the position
of the anti-Chalcedonians in the Empire, after he had arrived at
Constantinople. Therefore, he had brought about the restorations to the
episcopal sees at Ephesus and Antioch of, respectively, Paul and Peter the
Fuller, who were accused of heresy and deposed in the reign of Leo I.71 Peter
had accepted the anti-Chalcedonian Encyclical of Basiliscus and, taking
advantage of the bishop Julianís death, acceded to the see of Antioch, not
without, as it seems, causing some turmoil in the city as a consequence.72
Those developments had probably taken place in the same period as
Timothyís summoning of the synod at Ephesus, in the summer of 475.73
68 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450: Constantinopolim redisse; Liberatus 17,
122: fugiens redisse Constantinopolim. These sources do not mention the monastery
of the Sleepless Monks.
70 On Basiliscus, see first of all M. SALAMON, Basiliscus cum Romanis suis, in: Studia
Moesiaca, eds. L. Mrozewicz – K. Ilski, PoznaÒ 1994, 179-196, and also G. M.
BERSANETTI, Basilisco e l’Imperatore Leone I, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia
Romana di Archeologia 20 (1943-1944) 331-346; E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-
Empire, vol. I, De l’État romain à l’État byzantin (284-476), Paris – Bruxelles –
Amsterdam 1959, 361-364; M. REDIES, Die Usurpation des Basiliskos (475-476) im
Kontext der Aufsteigenden monophysitischen Kirche, Antiquite Tardive 5 (1997) 211-
221; J. PROSTKO-PROSTY—SKI, Basiliskos: Ein in Rom anerkannter Usurpator, Zeitschrift
f¸r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133 (2000) 259-265.
71 Pseudo-Zacharias V, 2 and V, 5; Theodore Lector, Epitome 402-405; Theophanes AM
5967; Evagrius III, 5; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 477.3 (the author does not mention
Peterís first episcopate at all); John Malalas XV, 1 and XV, 5 (he states incorrectly
that Zeno himself had put him up for the Antiochene see); Liberatus 17, 122.
72 Theodore Lector, Epitome 410; Pseudo-Zacharias V, 3; Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 421.
Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1934 and Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 184. The Encyclical was issued on 6 April 475, cf. Ph. BLAUDEAU,
Alexandrie et Constantinople, 173. The text in: E. SCHWARTZ, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431,
eine antichalkedonische Sammlung aus der Zeit Kaiser Zenos, Abhandlungen der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und his-
torische Klasse. XXXII, 6, M¸nich 1927, 49-51 (document no. 73, long review);
Evagrius III, 4 (short review); Pseudo-Zacharias V, 2 (short review); Nikephorus
Kallistus XVI, 3 (the text follows Evagriusí version).
73 Cf. Pseudo-Zacharias V, 3-5; Evagrius III, 5-6; Nikephorus Kallistus XVI, 5, col. 128;
Liberatus IX, 5. M. REDIES, Die Usurpation des Basiliskos, 214 dates that synod to 63
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
We do not know if Peter had undertaken any decisive steps against

Chalcedonians after returning to the see of Antioch.74 Although
Theodore mentions serious disturbances involving bloodshed, he states
that the reason was Peterís addition to the Trishagion, not the questions
connected with the Council of Chalcedon.75 Peter consecrated John
Codonatus as bishop of Apamea, but the latter was not accepted by the
inhabitants of that city.76 We are not quite certain of Johnís Christological
beliefs.77 Another person of whom we know that had been consecrated by
Peter, as priest, was John Rufus, known for his ardent and staunch hostil-
ity towards the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon.78
In August of 476 Zeno returned to the imperial throne, whereas
Basiliscus and his family died at the place of exile some time later.79 The
emperor, supported by the patriarch of Constantinople Acacius, had
quite promptly cancelled the usurperís personal decisions, removing from
office, among others, Peter the Fuller and ordering to send him to Pityus
on the Black Sea.80 Finally, the place of his exile was the shrine of St
Theodore Tiron at Euchaita.81 The reason for his banishment was, above
October 475 at the latest, while Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 180
back to September. Cf. also S. LENAIN DE TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir à l’his-
toire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, tome XVI, Paris 1712, 299-300, Ch. J.
HEFELE – H. LECLERCQ, Histoire des Conciles, Paris 1908, vol. II, 912-913, W. H. C.
FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 171-172.
74 Cf. G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 488, who is of the opinion that Peter
had actively opposed the Chalcedonians.
75 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 410. Likewise Theophanes AM 5967.
76 Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450; Liberatus 17, 122-123. Theodore Lector
and Theophanes place Johnís consecration during Peterís first episcopate, cf.
Theodore Lector, Epitome 392 and Theophanes AM 5956. Cf. also A. GRILLMEIER ñ T.
HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 299-300.
77 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450, with the information that in 476 it was
John who had banished Peter from Antioch ([Iohannes] Petrum episcopatus sui pel-
lit auctorem et inuadit eius ecclesiam). Cf. Liberatus 17, 123. G. DOWNEY, A History of
Antioch in Syria, 489 believes however that John was a Monophysite.
78 Cf. John Rufus, Plerophoriae 22, 47. See also B. BITTON-ASHKELONY ñ A. KOFSKY,
Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity, Leiden ñ Boston 2004, 91 and C. B. HORN,
Asceticism and Christological Controversy, 42. On John Rufus and the works attrib-
uted to his authorship more in: J.-E. STEPPA, John Rufus and the World Vision of Anti-
Chalcedonian Culture, Piscataway 2002, 57-80.
79 On the subject of various accounts concerning the circumstances of the death
of Basiliscus and his family, see K. TWARDOWSKA, Cesarzowe bizantyjskie 2 po≥. V w.
Kobiety a w≥adza, KrakÛw 2006, 176-182.
80 On Pityus as a place of exile, see E. DIEHL, Pityus, in: Paulys Realencyclop‰die
der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Band 20/2, Stuttgart 1950, cols. 1883-1884
and I. MILEWSKI, Depozycje i zsy≥ki biskupÛw, 364, note 538.
81 Cf. Pseudo-Zacharias V, 5; Theodore Lector, Epitome 415; Theophanes AM 5969;
Evagrius III, 8; John Malalas XV, 6 only writes that the emperor Zeno had sent
Peter into exile at Euchaita, not mentioning any other possible place of exile.
Likewise, Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 421 and John of Nikiou 88, 43. Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre
le Foulon, col. 1934; A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 300 and Ph.
64 BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 190. According to Michel van Esbroeck, in
all, the close political relations with Basiliscus,82 but the legal basis for the
deposition was the verdict passed by the Antiochene and Constanti-
nopolitan synods, which had again recognized Peter as a heretic.83 The
Synodicon Vetus mentions that also at Cyrus, towards the end of Basiliscusí
reign, the local bishop John had summoned a synod that issued an anath-
ema against Peter the Fuller.84
After a three-month long episcopate of John Codonatus,85 Stephen,
who was a Chalcedonian, became the new bishop of Antioch, while
Acacius, who wanted to have a safeguard against Peterís possible appeal to
Rome, wrote in 477 a letter to Pope Simplicius, in which he described
Peter the Fullerís heretical activity and asked the pope to never give his
consent to justify him.86 The letter to Simplicius is an indication, there-
fore, of the fact that Peter had still, despite his exile, continued to pose a
certain threat. The proof may be also the developments in connection
with the Antiochene bishop Stephen, who was, like Martyrius before,
accused of Nestorianism by the followers of Peter the Fuller, according to
Theophanes. Although Stephen was later cleared of the charges by the
Theodore Lectorís passage the information refers not to the monastery of

Theodore at Euchaita, but to Peterís finding of a refuge at the tomb of Theodore
of Euchaita at Amasea, cf. M. VAN ESBROECK, The Memra on the Parrot, 468. The
scholar is, however, mistaken ñ Peter did not seek refuge at Amasea proper, but
at Theodore Tironís shrine at Euchaita, located west of Amasea, cf. Ch. WALTER,
The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition, Aldershot 2003, 44-66, especially
56-58. Concerning the location of Euchaita, see H. GR…GOIRE, GÈographie byzantine,
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 19 (1913) 59-61 and C. FOSS, Euchaita, in: The Oxford
Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. P. Kazhdan, New York ñ Oxford 1991, 737.
82 The political reasons for Peter the Fullerís deposition are stressed by: John
Malalas XV, 5; Theodore Lector, Epitome 415; Theophanes AM 5969; John of Nikiou 88,
43; Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum, 171.
83 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450-451; Theophanes AM 5969; Synodicon
Vetus 101 and Laudatio S. Barnabae, 110-111. Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 190 is of the opinion, however, that the deposition and exile of
Peter had been based only on the imperial legal sanction.
84 Cf. Synodicon Vetus 100. The exile had taken place at the turn of 476. Chronicon
ad annum Domini 846 pertinens, 166 mentions that Peterís second episcopate was
two years long.
85 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 415 and Theophanes AM 5969. G. DOWNEY, A History
of Antioch in Syria, 489 believes that the ground for deposing John from the
Antiochene see was his theological views. Cf. also A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER,
Jesus der Christus, 300 and Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 190-191. In
483 John Codonatus, supported by Acacius, became bishop of Tyre (Gesta de
nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 451; Liberatus 17, 123). According to Philippe Blaudeau,
he was to be a kind of informer for the Constantinopolitan bishop with regard to
the situation in the East, cf. Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 210.
Differently, G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 490, stated that Acacius had
relocated John to Tyre so that Calandion could take his place at Antioch. This the-
sis, however, assumes that John Codonatus had returned to the Antiochene see
after the murder of Stephen in 479, which is not mentioned in the sources at all.
86 Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450-451. Cf. W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the
Monophysite Movement, 181. In his letter, Acacius had also referred to the issue of
John Codonatus. 65
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
synod at Laodicaea, summoned by the emperor, the events that happened

later on, including the murder of Stephen by a hostile populace in March
479, are the evidence that Peter had still retained his influence at
Antioch.87
Third episcopate
The second deposition of Peter the Fuller had seemed to finally seal
his fate. Over a period of several years following the overthrow of
Basiliscusí usurpation, Zeno and Acacius had pursued a definitely
Chalcedonian course in politics, aiming to restore the status ante 475 in
the Church. However, a sudden shift in the political situation had caused
yet another turn in Peterís fate. At the beginning of 480s a growing hiatus
between the emperor and Illus had become even more visible, with the
latter becoming in fact the second most important figure of the state.88
Preparing for a confrontation with the Isaurian nobleman, Zeno had
been trying to gain a broad base of support among the population, includ-
ing Egypt. However, that province had mostly sympathized with the adver-
saries of the Council of Chalcedon, in opposition to the Chalcedonian
patriarch Timothy Salophakiolos and supporting the clandestine patri-
arch Peter Mongos ñ who was an opponent of the Council. In 482, taking
advantage of the opportunity afforded by Timothyís death, the emperor
Zeno had decided to make a compromise with the anti-Chalcedonians.
He agreed to recognize Peter Mongos as legitimate patriarch on the con-
dition that he would accept the Alexandrian Chalcedonians into the com-
munity, thus ending the split within the Egyptian Church, and sign a com-
promise document determining the fundamental conditions for estab-
lishing the communion between Alexandria and Constantinople, as con-
tained in the imperial edict known as the Henoticon.89 As soon as Peter
87 Cf. Theophanes AM 5970 (considered to be an excerpt from Theodore Lectorís

Epitome 418) and AM 5973 (considered to be an excerpt from Theodore Lectorís
Epitome 421); Synodicon Vetus 102; John of Nikiou 88, 44; Michael the Syrian IX, 6, 149.
Cf. G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 489-490; A. GRILLMEIER ñ T.
HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 300 and Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople,
195.
88 On Illus, see H. ELTON, Illus and the imperial aristocracy under Zeno, Byzantion 70
(2000) 393-407; M. J. LESZKA, Illus Izauryjczyk wobec uzurpacji Bazyliskosa, in: Acta
Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia historica 80 (2005) 45-53. On the events before
Illusí rebellion, see E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. II, De la disparition de
l’Empire d’Occident à la mort de Justinien (476-565), Paris ñ Bruxelles ñ Amsterdam
1949, 15-20.
89 The text: Greek ñ E. SCHWARTZ, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431, 52-54 (document no.
75); Evagrius III, 14; Nikephorus Kallistus XVI, 12 (reliant on Evagrius); A. VAN
ROEY, Le Monacensis Graecus 331 et la tradition manuscrite de líHenotique de líempereur
ZÈnon, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 31 (2000-2005) 105-108; Syriac transla-
tion ñ Pseudo-Zacharias V, 8; Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum, 230-234; Latin transla-
tion ñ Liberatus 17, 113-117; Facundus of Hermiane, Pro defensione trium capitulorum
12, 4; E. SCHWARTZ, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431, 54-56. This document was composed,
most probably, by Acacius, cf. Pseudo-Zacharias V, 7; Evagrius III, 13; John of Nikiou
66 88, 62; Theophanes AM 5976. Acaciusí authorship is generally accepted, cf.
Mongos had agreed to accept the conditions presented, Acacius estab-

lished the communion with him.90
The patriarch of Antioch Calandion, however, had opposed to recog-
nizing Peter Mongos. Moreover, after Illusí rebellion had broken out, he
openly supported it, erasing the name of Zeno from the diptychs, which
was tantamount to open declaration of disobedience to the emperor.91 It
is not surprising that after the swift defeat of Illus, Calandion was deposed
and sent to exile at the Great Oasis in Egypt at the end of 484 or the begin-
ning of 485.92 However, before that had happened, his uncompromising
stance towards the anti-Chalcedonians had led to the formation within the
patriarchate of a strong opposition headed by a staunch enemy of
Chalcedon, Philoxenus of Maboug. When Philoxenus had been banished
by Calandion, he went on to organize further opposition against the bish-
op among the Mesopotamian monks and accused him of heresy before
the emperor in Constantinople.93
In such an inflamed environment the emperor had to seek a more
moderate figure, inclined to accept a compromise on the basis of the
Henoticon of 482 and thus pacify the province. Despite the rebelsí defeat,
the political situation had not been entirely clear, as Illus and his closest
supporters had retreated to Papirion, one of the Isaurian strongholds,
where they put up resistance until 488.94
Zeno had decided to give his support to Peter the Fuller.95 Most prob-
ably, one of the crucial reasons was the support from the local population
E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 197; W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the
Monophysite Movement, 177; M. B. LESZKA, MiÍdzy ortodoksjπ a monofizytyzmem. Obsada
tronÛw patriarszych Konstantynopola, Aleksandrii, Antiochii i Jerozolimy w polityce cesarza
Zenona, Vox Patrum 18 (1998) 448; H. Ch. BRENNECKE, Chalkedonense und
Henotikon. Bemerkungen zur Prozeﬂ der ˆstlichen Rezeption der christologischen Formel von
Chalkedon, in: Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualit‰t. Studien zur Rezeption der
christologischen Formel von Chalkedon, herausgegeben von Johannes van Oort,
J. Roldanus, Leuvain 1997, 42; P. ALLEN, Evagrius Scholasticus, 131.
90 Pseudo-Zacharias V, 7. 11-12; Theodore Lector, Epitome 422-424; Evagrius III 16;
Theophanes AM 5976; Liberatus 17, 112. Cf. H. Ch. BRENNECKE, Chalkedonense und
Henotikon, 42.
91 A Letter of Pope Gelasius to the Bishops of Dardania, CA 95, 392. Cf. G. DOWNEY, A
History of Antioch in Syria, 496 and E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. II, 33.
92 Pseudo-Zacharias V, 9; Theodore Lector, Epitome 443; Theophanes AM 5982; Evagrius
III 16; Liberatus 17, 125-126. Cf. also W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite
Movement, 181. On various proposals of dating Calandionís deposition, see M. B.
LESZKA, MiÍdzy ortodoksjπ a monofizytyzmem, 450.
93 Pseudo-Zacharias VII, 10; Theodore Lector, Epitome 444; Theophanes AM 5982. Cf. A.
DE HALLEUX, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie, Louvain 1963, 31-
39 and A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 301.
94 Cf. Joshua Stylites 17, 15-16; John of Antioch, fr. 306, 520-526. Cf. also E. W.
BROOKS, The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians, The English Historical Review 8
(1893) 227-228 and E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. II, 30-31.
95 Cf. Theophanes AM 5982 (considered to be an excerpt from Theodore Lectorís
Epitome 443); Evagrius III, 16; John Malalas XV, 6; Synodicon Vetus 105; Laudatio S.
Barnabae, 112; Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 32; John of Nikiou 88, 63; Chronicon
Iacobi Edesseni, 235. Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 421 writes that Zeno had consulted 67
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
that he had received, mentioned by Pseudo-Zacharias and confirmed by

the existence of the opposition, associated with him, against the cityís
Chalcedonian bishops.96 His return to the Antiochene see and the accla-
mation by the synod of the East had taken place in 485.97 His actions aim-
ing to establish a relative equilibrium in the Antiochene Church, based
upon the Henoticon compromise, had encountered rather negative
responses from both groups. On the one hand, he had pacified
Philoxenusí actions by elevating him to the bishop of Hierapolis/Ma-
boug;98 on the other, he deposed many bishops, most likely Illusí sup-
porters, though the Chalcedonian sources tend to emphasize their affini-
ty with Chalcedon. They were: Nestor of Tarsus, Kyros of Hierapolis, John
of Kyrestai, Romanus of Chalcedon, Eusebius of Samosata, Julian of
Mopsuestia, Paul of Constantina, Manos of Hemeria, and Andrew of
Theodosioupolis.99
It is very difficult, therefore, to determine the actual position of Peter
the Fuller with regard to the Council of Chalcedon. It is beyond doubt
that upon signing the Encyclical of Basiliscus and acceding, for the third
time, to the see, Peter had issued an anathema against the Council of
Chalcedon,100 yet for radical anti-Chalcedonians his stance, especially
towards the end of his life, raised some considerable doubts.101 Perhaps,
the reason for this distrust was Peterís acceptance of the Henoticon, which
was considered to be a crypto-Chalcedonian document by the radical
ìall the bishopsî about his decision. Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 220
says that Peter was Zenoís candidate, whereas Acacius wished that John
Codonatus would be appointed.
96 Cf. Pseudo-Zacharias V, 9-10. Cf. also A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der
Christus, 303. W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 175 says that
Zenoís approval of Peter the Fuller had been necessary in order to restore har-
mony in the Antiochene Church, and it resulted from Peterís popularity among
the inhabitants of the city.
97 For the question of dating, see Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 220.
98 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 444; Theophanes AM 5982; Synodicon Vetus 105. On
Philoxenus, see especially A. DE HALLEUX, Philoxène de Mabbog. Hierapolis was a
strongly Chalcedonian metropolitan see, cf. W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the
Monophysite Movement, 188-189.
99 Theophanes AM 5982 (supplemented with the Latin version). Cf. W. H. C.
FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 188; P. T. R. GRAY, The Defense of
Chalcedon, 33 and Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 220, who are con-
vinced that the reasons for the above-mentioned bishopsí depositions were reli-
gious rather than political. Differently, G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 496
writes that we do not know anything about any instances of Chalcedonians being
persecuted by Peter.
100 Cf. Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 485, who writes that Peter had rejected Chalcedon,
while s.a. 487 describes Peter as: chalcedonensis synodi inimicus, Laudatio S.
Barnabae, 110, in turn, mentions that he had openly condemned the Council of
Chalcedon.
101 See John Rufus, Plerophoriae 22, 49 and A Letter of Severus of Antioch to Ammonios,
254-256, in which the author reproached Peter for his communion with
68 Chalcedonians. Cf. also A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 301-302.
opponents of the Council.102 We should bear in mind that Peter Mongos

had to face similar allegations from radical anti-Chalcedonians. The syn-
odal letter of 485, the only extant document authored by Peter,103 evades
any Christological formulations, concentrating on proving the conformi-
ty of the Henoticon with Church orthodoxy, emphasizing above all its anti-
Nestorian character by recognizing Cyrilís anathemas as well as the con-
formity of the document with the Creed of the Council of Nicaea, as con-
firmed by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Ephesus (431).104
And even though the tradition connected with Theodore Lector states
that during the synod Peter had explicitly excommunicated the Council
of Chalcedon, the afore-mentioned synodal letter does not include such a
condemnation.105 It appears, therefore, that he was a staunch adversary
of Nestorianism and a moderate opponent of the Council of Chalcedon,
who could be satisfied with the compromise represented by the Henoticon
without the necessity of explicitly excommunicating the assembly of the
bishops in 451.106
After his return in 485 to the Antiochene see Peter was to remove
from the text of the Trishagion hymn the expression ìO Christ the Kingî,
added by Calandion to the hymn in order to avoid the Theopaschite over-
tone of Peterís earlier addition, causing once again a wave of tumult.107 It
seems therefore that the primary characteristic of Peter the Fullerís reli-
gious policy was that particular innovation. Does it mean, however, that he
advocated Theopaschite or Apollinarian views? The Trishagion doxology
was regarded as either a hymn addressed to Christ or the Trinity.108 At
102 Cf. R. KOSI—SKI, Kilka uwag o Henotikonie i domniemanym zwrocie w polityce religi-
jnej cesarza Zenona, (forthcoming); likewise, E. SCHWARTZ, Johannes Rufus, ein mono-
physitischer Schrifsteller, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 16 Abhandlung, Heidelberg
1912, 16-17.
103 Cf. K.-H. UTHEMANN, Petros der Walker, col. 143. However, Aloys Grillmeier is of
the opinion that the synodal letter was not written by Peter and it reflects not so
much his own views as those of the assembled bishops, cf. A. GRILLMEIER ñ T.
HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 296.
104 Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1934. The content of the synodal letter of the
assembly that approved Peterís third election in: Pseudo-Zacharias V, 10.
105 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 443; Theophanes AM 5982; Synodicon Vetus 105;
Pseudo-Zacharias V, 10. Cf. also Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 231,
note 755.
106 Cf. A. DE HALLEUX, Philoxène de Mabbog, 34 and A. GRILLMEIER ñ T.
HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 302. P. T. R. GRAY, The Defense of Chalcedon, 23,
expresses the view that the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon were unac-
ceptable for Peter as they seemed to him the triumph of Nestorianism. Ph.
BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 231 considers him to be moderate in mat-
ters of doctrine, while M. VAN ESBROECK, The Memra on the Parrot, 469 regards Peter
as an opportunist.
107 Cf. Theophanes AM 5982; John Diacrinomenos, Epitome 545. On the introduction
of Calandionís addition, Theodore Lector, Epitome 427.
108 The Trishagion dates back to the tenure of Proclus, bishop of Constantinople
in the years 434-447, and is related to the earthquake of 446 at the capital. During 69
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
Antioch, the Christological interpretation of the hymn prevailed. To the

words ìHoly God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on usî Peter
had added, after the word ìImmortalî, the words ìwho was crucified for
usî. He had done so in all probability precisely to reinforce the
Christological interpretation of the hymn by stressing that the Logos had
truly incarnated and suffered.109
However, those who believed that the Trishagion is addressed to the
entire Holy Trinity were shocked at the innovation added by Peter, which
unequivocally suggested that the impassible God had suffered.110 In
order to avoid such a heretical interpretation, Calandion added the words
ìO Christ the Kingî to the doxology, so that it would be obvious that the
expression ìwho was crucified for usî referred only to the second Person
of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, Peterís removal of Calandionís addition
had been considered as an open introduction of the Theopaschite inter-
pretation of the hymn by Peter the Fuller.111 However, not all of the
adherents of the Christological interpretation had accepted Calandionís
correction. For instance, in his letter to the monks of Teleda, Philoxenus
of Maboug had regarded Calandionís addition as a Nestorian intrusion
going so far as to introduce the fourth Person of God.112 A similar accu-
sation is expressed by Isaac of Antioch in his poem on a parrot reciting
the Trishagion in Peterís version.113 We cannot therefore explicitly deter-
mine if it was Peter the Fullerís intention to show his support for the
Theopaschite interpretation of the doxology.114
one of the services celebrated in public, the words of the hymn were to be
revealed to a little boy. On the Trishagion, see especially V. S. JANERAS, Les byzan-
tines et le trishagion christologique, in: Miscellanea liturgica in onore de Cardinale
Giacomo Lercaro, vol. II, Rome 1957, 469-499; S. BROCK, The thrice-holy hymn in the
liturgy, Sobornost. Eastern Christian Review 7 (1985) 24-34; K. GINTER, SpÛr o
Trisagion, in: Res Historica 14, Graecorum et Romanorum memoria II, ed. L.
Morawiecki, Lublin 2002, 221-231 and A. LOUTH, Trishagion, in: Theologische
Realenzyklop‰die, Band 34, Berlin 2002, 121-124.
109 Cf. A. LOUTH, Denys the Areopagite, London 2002, 9-10; B. VARGHESE, West Syrian
Liturgical Theology, London 2004, 69; P. ALLEN ñ C. T. R. HAYWARD, Severus of
Antioch, London 2004, 9.
111 Cf. K. GINTER, SpÛr o Trisagion, 228, though the author is mistaken in his
assumption that the original version of the elaborated hymn was identical with
Calandionís version.
112 Philoxenus, A Letter to the Monks of Teleda, p. 496. See also A. DE HALLEUX,
Philoxène de Mabbog, 194-195. Paradoxically, Peter was accused of introducing the
fourth Person to the Trinity by John of Damascus in his Expositio Fidei, cf. John of
Damascus, Expositio Fidei 54, 1.
113 The text in: G. S. BICKELL, S. Isaaci Antiocheni Doctoris Syrarum Opera omnia, pars
I, Gieﬂen 1873, 84-89. The allegation of introducing an idol, the fourth Person,
into the Trinity by Calandionís addition, especially in the verses 207-210. Cf. also
A. I. BARSOUM, The Scattered Pearls. A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, trans.
by M. Moosa, Piscataway 2003, 246-247.
114 Cf. W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 168, who notes that
the hymn with Peterís addition had become a touchstone of the Monophysite
70 orthodoxy.
The issue of the Trishagion had been indeed the core of the conflicts
at Antioch, in which Peter the Fuller got involved. The significance of the
question can be seen in the light of the afore-mentioned Syrian poem by
Isaac of Antioch, describing a man who had taught his parrot to recite the
Trishagion in Peterís version, to test the resistance of those who were
against the formula. The poem was written probably towards the end of
Calandionís episcopate.115 It mentions bloody riots that erupted in con-
nection with the controversy over Calandionís addition, attacking the lat-
ter, and Diphysites in general, while sympathizing with Peter, without
mentioning his name anywhere in the poem.
The third episcopate of Peter the Fuller is also connected with other
liturgical innovations attributed to him. Theodore Lector writes that he
had introduced the recitation of the Nicene Creed at each Eucharist,
which made it, and not the Chalcedonian definitions, the standard of
orthodoxy.116 The change may be linked to the Henoticon, whose formula
of compromise had been based exactly on that Creed, which would sug-
gest that it had taken place during Peterís third episcopate.117 The
reforms that Peter was to introduce into the liturgy also included, accord-
ing to Theodore, consecrating the oil in front of the audience of believ-
ers, reciting an epiclesis over the baptismal water at the eve of the
Epiphany as well as saying an invocation to Theotokos in each prayer.118
In his Laudatio in honour of St Barnabas, Alexander the Monk writes
that Peter wished to re-establish the authority of the Antiochene see over
the Church of Cyprus.119 The author says that in order to strengthen this
claim the archbishop had raised, first of all, the argument of the apostle-
ship of the Church of Antioch and pointed out the fact that Christianity in
Cyprus had originated from the city on the Orontes. Cypriot bishop
115 Cf. M. VAN ESBROECK, The Memra on the Parrot, 469.

116 Cf. A. LOUTH, Denys the Areopagite, 9.
117 Although Bernard Capelle recognized that the introduction of the Nicene
Creed into the liturgy can be convincingly linked only with the patriarch of
Constantinople Timothy, who had introduced it into the Eucharist around the
year 515, it pertains, however, to the liturgy of the Church of Constantinople, not
of Antioch. Cf. B. CAPELLE, L’ Introduction du symbole à la messe, in: MÈlanges
Joseph de Ghellinck, vol. II, Gemboux 1951, 1003-1007. We do not know whether
Timothy had followed the example of Peterís reform, as suggested by Henryk
Paprocki, cf. W. HRYNIEWICZ ñ K. KARSKI ñ H. PAPROCKI, Credo. Symbol naszej wiary,
KrakÛw 2009, 27 and R. TAFT, The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer of Gifts
and other Pre-anaphoral Rites, Roma 1978, 396-405. According to L. PERRONE, Pietro
il Fullone, col. 2794 the liturgical modifications had been introduced by Peter the
Fuller during his second episcopate.
118 Theodore Lector, Epitome 428; John Diacrinomenos, Epitome 547; Nikephorus Kallistus
XV, 28. Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1935 and G. WAGNER, PoúwiÍcenie myronu,
Wiadomoúci Polskiego Autokefalicznego Koúcio≥a Prawos≥awnego 19 (1989) 35-
36.
119 Laudatio S. Barnabae, 112-118; Theodore Lector, Epitome 436; Cedrenus,
Compendium Historiarum, 618-619 and Nikephorus Kallistus XIV, 37. Peterís action
towards the Church of Cyprus is dated to his third episcopate, cf. G. HILL, A
History of Cyprus, vol. I, To the Conquest by Richard Lion Heart, Cambridge 1940, 276. 71
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
Anthemiosí discovery of the grave of the Apostle Barnabas near Salamis,

proving that the Church of Cyprus had its own apostolic roots, was to weak-
en Peterís argumentation and finally contribute to the emperor Zenoís dis-
missal of Peter the Fullerís claim.120 This account had become deeply
entrenched in the Cypriot tradition, which accepted that the Church of
Cyprus owed its autocephalia to the emperor Zenoís intervention.121
John Malalas, in his chronicle, mentions that towards the end of
Zenoís reign, that is during the episcopate of Peter the Fuller or his suc-
cessor, some violent riots broke out at Antioch leading to acts of aggres-
sion against the Jews living in the city: many of them were killed, the syn-
agogue of Asabinus was burned down, bodies of the dead were desecrat-
ed (unearthed and burned) by the mob.122 No account, however, states
that the bishop may have been involved in those events, whereas Ernest
Steinís thesis that the Jews, along with the Blue faction and pagans, had
supported Illusí rebellion may prove that the incidents in question were
still connected with the year 484.123
In spite of the support from the population of Antioch, Peter had not
been accepted by all the Churches. Although Peter Mongos and Martyrius
of Jerusalem established the communion with him, the patriarch of
Constantinople Acacius had not been inclined to do so.124 The news of
Calandionís deposition and taking over of the Antiochene see by Peter
the Fuller, as well as calls from Chalcedonians in the province Syria II, had
led Rome into a stark response. At the Rome synod in October 485 Pope
Felix III had effected yet another excommunication of Peter the Fuller.125
120 On the discovery of the Apostle Barnabaís grave, see also Victor of Tunnuna,
s.a. 488.1.
121 See in particular G. HILL, A History of Cyprus, 276-279 and A. N. MITSIDES, Tov
aujtokevfalon th`~ E j kklhsiva~ th`~ Kuvprou, in: XVe Congrès international d’études
byzantines. Rapports et co-rapports, V, 2, Chypre dans le monde byzantine,
Athènes 1976, 3-18, especially 4-5. Cf. also G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in
Syria, 496-497 and A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 301.
122 Cf. John Malalas XV, 15. It appears that those incidents were related to the con-
flicts between the circus factions. However, the Slavic translation of Malalas mentions
that the figure behind the anti-Jewish tumults was a certain monk who had locked
himself in one of the towers of the cityís south wall, from where he encouraged the
populace to attack the Jews, whose synagogue was nearby, see Chronika Joanna Malaly
w slavyanskom perevode, 11. Cf. also G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 497-499.
123 Cf. E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. II, 32.
124 Pseudo-Zacharias V, 10. Cf. also Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 220-
222 ñ in the French scholarís opinion, Acacius had refused to recognize Peter,
which is indicated by the absence of any mention in the papal sources from the
490s about the communion between Peter the Fuller and Acacius, signs of
improving relations between the latter and the Chalcedonian monks of
Constantinople and attributing to him the authorship of one of the apocryphal
letters to Peter concerning the Trishagion. One should remember, however, that
in 485 the synod at Rome had assigned the initiative in elevating Peter to Acacius,
cf. Letter of the Rome Synod of 5 October 485, CA 70, 157.
125 Cf. Letter of the Roman Synod of 5 October 485, CA 70, 155-161; Cyril of Scythopolis,
Vita Sabae 32; Synodicon Vetus 106-107. Cf. also W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the
72 Monophysite Movement, 181-182 and 186.
Despite this situation, Peter was to continue at the see of Antioch until his
death in, probably, 488.126
Summary
In the 460s, Peter the Fuller was the head of one of the
Constantinopolitan monasteries, perhaps the monastery at the Church of
St Bassa at Chalcedon. Expelled from that monastery, he went to Antioch,
where he acceded three times to the office of bishop, however perform-
ing the episcopal duties for a period of no more than five years altogeth-
er. His first episcopate began probably at the end of 470 or the beginning
of 471, and lasted until the spring of 471; the second one from the sum-
mer of 475 until the summer/autumn of 476; and the third one from the
beginning of 485 until his death. In his public activity, he was known as an
ardent adversary of Nestorianism and a liturgical reformer. His lasting
legacy became his innovative addition to the Trishagion doxology, which
had soon turned into a watchword for the opponents of the Council of
Chalcedon. Peter the Fuller himself, however, does not seem to be an
explicit adversary of Chalcedon, being more of a moderate opponent
ready to accept the compromise as provided by the Henoticon. The second
and third episcopates of Peter were impacted by political issues, even
though his generally assumed close relations with Zeno of Isauria appear
to have been deliberately overstated by Theodore Lector, who was dis-
tinctly ill-disposed towards Zeno.
126 Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 488.3. Theophanes dates Peterís death to the year 5983
since the Creation, which corresponds to AD 490-491. Cf. also Chronicon ad annum
Domini 846 pertinens, 166 and Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 421 saying that the period
of his last episcopate was to be 5 years long, which indicates the year 489/490. Cf.
also Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum, 171. Cf. G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria,
507-508, note 19 and W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 190. 73

Peter The Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch (471-488) : Rafa KOSI-SKI (Bia Ystok)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peter The Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch (471-488) : Rafa KOSI-SKI (Bia Ystok)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peter The Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch (471-488) : Rafa KOSI-SKI (Bia Ystok)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch

Rafa≥ KOSI—SKI (Bia≥ystok)

Theodore Lector and the related tradition

Victor of Tunnuna was one of the six African bishops summoned to

3 Cf. A. PLACANICA, Da Cartagine a Bisanzio: per la biografia di Vittore Tunnunense,

The Roman tradition

6 Cf. P. JANISZEWSKI, Jan Diakrinomenos i jego Historia koúcielna, in: ChrzeúcijaÒstwo

letters addressed to Peter the Fuller by Pope Felix, archbishop of

The supposed authorship of Pseudo-Dionysius’ letters

ab I. Bekkero suppletus et emendatus, tomus prior, Bonnae 1838; Chronicon ad

drawn attention, first of all, to the similarities of the liturgical innovations,

dionysischen Schriften, Salzburger Jahrbuch f¸r Philosophie 5/6 (1961-1962) 135-

Peter the Fuller’s background and early years

25 Cf. L. PERRONE, Pietro il Fullone, col. 2794.

information supplement each other, aside from the information on the

33 Cf. E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 162 (document 19). Acaciusí letter

The first episcopate

in the hopes of finding some support there. Seizing the opportunity,

synod had convened probably with the purpose of passing a judgement

G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 486; W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the

The second episcopate

We do not know if Peter had undertaken any decisive steps against

Theodore Lectorís passage the information refers not to the monastery of

synod at Laodicaea, summoned by the emperor, the events that happened

87 Cf. Theophanes AM 5970 (considered to be an excerpt from Theodore Lectorís

Mongos had agreed to accept the conditions presented, Acacius estab-

that he had received, mentioned by Pseudo-Zacharias and confirmed by

opponents of the Council.102 We should bear in mind that Peter Mongos

Antioch, the Christological interpretation of the hymn prevailed. To the

115 Cf. M. VAN ESBROECK, The Memra on the Parrot, 469.

Anthemiosí discovery of the grave of the Apostle Barnabas near Salamis,

You might also like