cleared a space and dug their grave, and died encour- aging each other. In the paintings of the churches they are represented in priestly habits bearing palms.
They are commemorated by the Romish Church on June 2.
Peter Fi it" (also called Cnnpheus, i. e. the Puller), a patriarch of Antiocb, was born mar the commence-
PETER
31
PETER
ment of the 5th century. He was ahbot of a monastery at or near Constantinople, but various accusations (in- chiding heresy) being made against him, he fled to An- tioch, accompanying Zeno, son-in-law of the emperor Leo I, who was sent thither. Peter appears to have held the doctrine of the Monophysites, the controversy concerning which was at that time agitating the entire Eastern Church. On his arrival at Antioch, the patri- archate of which city was held by Martyrius, a support- er of the Council of Chalcedon, he determined to attempt the usurpation of that office, engaging Zeno and a num- ber of those who favored the Monophysite doctrine in the enterprise. Great tumult and confusion ensued, one cause of which was that Peter added to the sacred hymn called the Trisagion the words " who wast crucified for us" — which constituted one of the tests of the Monophy- sites— and anathematized all who did not sanction the alteration. Martyrius, unable to maintain order, went to Constantinople, where he was kindly received by Leo I, through whose influence he hoped to be able, on his return to Antioch, to quell the disturbance. Failing in this, and disgusted with his failure, he abdicated the patriarchate, which was immediately assumed by Peter. Leo, however, at the instigation of Gennadius, patri- arch of Constantinople, promptly expelled the intruder, in whose place Julian was elected, with general ap- proval. Peter was banished to Upper Egypt, but, con- triving to escape from his exile, he returned to Con- stantinople and obtained refuge in a monastery, where he remained until the revolt of Basiliscus against Zeno, having bound himself by oath to abstain from exciting further troubles. The revolt succeeding, and Zeno being driven from Constantinople, Basiliscus exerted himself to gain the Monophysites, and issued an encyclical let- ter to the various prelates of the Church, anathematiz- ing the decrees of the Synod of Chalcedon. Peter gave formal assent to this letter, and was immediately re- stored to the patriarchate of Antioch (A.D. 476). Jul- ian soon after died of grief, and Peter, resuming au- thority, restored the obnoxious clause " who wast cru- cified for us;" and by repeating his anathemas excited fresh tumults, which resulted in plunder and murder. Zeno, however, recovering the imperial power, a synod was assembled and Peter was deposed, chiefly through the agency of one of his own partisans, John Codonatus, whom he had made a bishop. He was banished to Pityus.from whence he escaped, and, going to Euchai'ta, obtained refuge in the church of St. Theodore. After a period of nine years, during which time numerous changes had been made in the patriarchate, the Mon- ophysites, again in the ascendant, persuaded Zeno to consent to the restoration of Peter upon his signing the emperor's " Henoticon," or decree for the unity of the Church. This event is placed by Theophanes in A.D. 485. The Western Church, which had maintained its allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon, assembled in council at Rome, and hurled its anathemas at Peter, but to no purpose. Protected by Zeno and the strength of his party, he retained the patriarchate during the re- mainder of his life. Theophanes charges him with various offences against ecclesiastical rule, and with many acts of oppression after his restoration; which charges are, unfortunately, corroborated by the previ- ous character of the man. One of the latest manifesta- tions of his ambition was the attempt to add the island of Cyprus to his patriarchate. He was succeeded by Palladius, a presbyter of Seleucia. His death is vari- ously stated to have occurred in A.D. 488, 490, 491. See Smith, Diet, of Or. and Rom. Biog. and Mythol. iii, 224. Peter the Hermit, an ecclesiastical character of the 11th century, is of very little significance except as the monks of the Church of Rome have given him im- portance by crediting him with the movement of the Christian Church against the Saracens, known as the First Crusade, for which the credit is by most compe- tent critics awarded to pope Urban II. Von Sybel, in his Geschichie des ernten Kreuzzuges (Diisseldorf, 1841),
examines the history of the first crusaders, and in con- sequence of a most searching review of all the records pronounces Peter of Amiens an apocryphal character, and his reputed efforts for the first crusade the inven- tion of Greek legendaries of the 12th century. Even William of Tyre, who is the principal source of the his- tory of the Crusades of all the Middle-Age historians, knows (in his Belli sacri historim about 1188) of Peter of Amiens only that he is a jxrsona contempt Wilis, whose fate was that of the other crusaders. The Jesuit G21- treman has made the life of Peter of Amiens the subject of a sacred romance, which is often mistaken for history. The whole scheme is intended to wrest the honor of the first Crusade from the papacy and to give it to the monks.