Petrus FULLO
17. FULLO, or sometimes retaining the Greek word GNAFHEUS or CNAPHEUS (
Πέτρος ὁ Γναφεύς or
Κναφεύς), the FULLER, patriarch of Antioch in the middle of the fifth century.
He was a priest or monk of the neighbourhood of Constantinople: but whether he originally followed the business of a Fuller, before embracing a religious life, or whether he carried it on while a monk is uncertain. Acacius of Constantinople (apud Liberat.
Breviar. 100.18), states that he was hegumenos, or abbot of a monastery at Constantinople; and that on account of his offences, or of accusations against him, "crimina," (their nature is not stated) he fled to Antioch. The
Laudatio S. Barnabae, c. 3.32, of Alexander the Cyprian monk (apud
Acta Sanctorum, Junii, vol. ii. p. 447), and the
Synodicon Vetus, first published by Jo. Pappus, and reprinted in the
Biblioth. Graeca, of Fabricius (vol. xii. p. 396) describe him as a monk of the monastery of the Acoemetae at Constantinople, who accompanied Zeno, son-in-law to the emperor Leo I., when sent to Antioch. On the other hand, Theodorus Lector (
H. E. 1.20), whom Theophanes and Cedrenus follow, says he was a presbyter of the Church of St. Bassa the Martyr at Chalcedon. Tillemont endeavours to arrange and harmonize these various statements as follows : that Peter was originally a monk in the monastery of the Acoemetae, which he places in the neighbourhood of Constantinople, but on the Asiatic side of the Bosporus; that having been expelled and obliged to flee on account both of immorality and heresy, he resorted to Constantinople, where he led the life of a parasite and a gourmand, and gained an introduction to Zeno (Tillemont is thus far supported by the monk Alexander); and that he was then, by Zeno's interest, made presbyter of the Church of St. Bassa.
The third step in this arrangement is, however, by no means satisfactory. Almost all our authorities agree that he accompanied Zeno to Antioch; and is, as is not improbable, the charge or the consciousness of some offence rendered his absence from Constantinople convenient, if not necessary, Acacius would not be far out in describing his journey as a flight. Peter appears to have held the monophysite doctrine, the controversy respecting which then agitated the whole Eastern Church : and on his arrival at Antioch, the patriarchate of which city was then held by Martyrius, a supporter of the Council of Chalcedon, he determined on the audacious enterprise of occupying that high office. Persuading Zeno to favour his attempt, he engaged on his side a number of those inclined to the Monophysite doctrine, (Theodorus Lector and others call them Apollinarists [APOLLINARIS, No. 2.], but it is likely that the Monophysites generally are meant,) and excited much dissension and tumult, among other causes of which was his adding to the sacred hymn called the Trisagion, the words "who Wast crucified for us," which constituted one of the party tests of the Monophysites, and his anathemnatizing all those who refused to sanction the alteration, and charging Martyrius himself with being a Nestorian. Martyrius, unable to stop the disorder by his own authority, went to Constantinople, where, through the influence of the patriarch Gennadius [GENNADIUS, No. 1], he was honorably treated by the emperor Leo I., and returned to Antioch, trusting that the imperial favour would enable him to quell all disturbance. Disappointed in this hope by the obstinacy of his opponents, and disgusted with his failure, he abdicated the patriarchate, which was immediately occupied by Peter. Leo, however, was not to be thus braved; and, at the instigation of Gennadius, he immediately expelled the intruder, in whose place Julian was with general approval elected. Peter was sentenced to banishment to the Oasis of Upper Egypt, but he contrived to escape from exile, and returning to Constantinople, obtained refuge in the monastery of the Acoemetae, where he remained till the revolt of Basiliscus against Zeno, having bound himself by oath to abstain from exciting further troubles. His usurpation of the See of Antioch may be placed in A. D. 469.
When Basiliscus (A. D. 475) had expelled Zeno from Constantinople, it appears to have been his first policy to court the Monophysite party, whom Leo and Zeno had repressed; and, at the persuasion of Timotheus Aelurus, Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, whom he had recalled from exile, he issued an encyclical letter to the various prelates of the church, anathematizing the decrees of the Synod of Chalcedon. To this letter Peter gave his formal assent: and obtained a decree restoring him to the patriarchate of antioch. to which city he was immediately sent. (A. D. 476.) The Monophysites regained their ascendancy. Julian was expelled, and soon after died of grief: and Peter resuming the patriarchal authority, excited, by again restoring the clause "who wast crucified for us," and by repeating his anathemas, fresh tumults, which led to plundering and murder.
But the recovery of the imperial power by Zeno checked his career: a synod was assembled at Antioch (A. D. 477), in which he was deposed, chiefly by the agency of one of his own partizans, John Codonatus [JOANNES, No. 10], whom he had appointed bishop of Apameia.
He was bianished to Pityus, from whence he contrived to escape, or was allowed to go to Euchaita in Pontus, where he found refuge in the church of St. Theodore. Tillemeont thinks he even returned to Antioch, but this is quite unlikely. John Codonatus meanwhile succeeded to the vacant patriarchate; but be being deposed after three months, Stephen, a supporter of the Council of Chalcedon, succeeded, and he dying soon after, another Stephen was appointed in his room.
But the Monophysites of Antioch, though deprived of their leader, were both active and powerful : they accused the first (the
Synodicon Ketus of Pappus says the second) of the two Stephens of Nestorianisim, and apparently succeeded in deposing him : for Theophanres says, that a council of the Eastern bishops, assenibled at Laodiceia by the emperor's command, "restored himn" (
ἀποκατέστησεν) to his episcopal throne.
The second Stephen (Tillemont and Valesius,
Not. ad Evagr. H. E. 3.16 say the first) was tumultuously murdered according to Evagrius by the boys of Antioch, but according to Malelas by the Monophysite party among his own clergy, who apparently restored, not Peter indecd, for he was too far removed, but the other Monophysite, John codonatus. However, Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, bought him off with the archbishopric of Tyre, and placed Calandion at Antioch in his room : but Calandion was soon banished, either on a charge of Nestorianism, or because he was a partizan of Illas and Leontius [ILLUS] ; and the Monophysites, now again completely in the aseendant, prevailed on Zeno to consent to the restoration of Peter, after the latter had signed the emperor's "Henoticon," or decree for the unity of the Church.
This final rostoration of Peter is placed by Theophanes in A. M. 5978, Alex. era, = A. D. 485 or 486. The Western Church, which all along retained its allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon, anathematized Peter in a council held at Rome (A. D. 485); but to no purpose. Protected now by Zeno, and strong in the predominance of hs own party, he retained the patriarchate at least for three years, till his death, which is placed by Victor of Tunes in A. D. 488, by Theophanes in A. M. 5983, Alex. era, = A. D. 490 or 491. Theophanes charges him with various offences against ecclesiastical rule, and with many acts of oppression in this last period of his episcopacy; and the charge derives credit from the previous character and conduct of Peter and his party. One of the latest manifestations of his ever-restless ambition was an attempt to add the island of Cyprus to his patriarchate.
He was succeeded in the see of Antioch by Palladius, a presbyter of Seleuceia.
The Concilia contain (vol. iv. col. 1098, &c. ed Labbe ; vol. ii. col. 817, 823, 835, &c. ed. Hardouin) a number of letters from various Eastern or Western prelates to Peter : but their genuineness is strongly disputed by Valesins (
Observation. Ecclestiastic. ad Evagrium, lib. i.;
De Petro Fullone et de Synodis adcersus cum congregatis, 100.4), and other modern critics.
Further Information
Evagrius,
H. E. 3.5, 10, 16, 23, cum not, Valesii; Theodor. Lector.
H. E. 1.20-22, 30, 31, 2.2, cum not. Valesii; Breviculus de Historia Entychianitychinisiarum s. Gesta de Nomine Acacii apud Concilia (vol. iv. col. 1079, ed. Labbe) ; laberatus,
Breriarium, 100.18; Theophanes,
Chronog. pp. 104-116, ed. Paris, pp. 83-93, ed. Venice, vol. i. pp. 187-209, ed. Bonn; Malelas,
Chronog. lib. xv. vol. ii. pp. 88-91, ed. Hody, vol. ii. pp. 32, 33, ed. Venice, pp. 379-381, ed. Bonn; Victor Tunnunensis,
Chronicon ; Alexander Monach. Cyprius,
Landatio S. Barnabae, 100.3, apud
Aeta Sanctorum, l.c.; Synodicon Vetus apud Fabricium,
l.c. ; Vales.
Observ. Eccles. ad Evagr. lib. i.; Tillemont,
Mémoires, vol. xvi., and
Hist. des Emp. vol. vi.; Le Quien.
Oriens Christianus, vol. ii. col. 724, &c.; Fabric.
Biblioth. Graec. vol. xi. p. 336.
