ARAM, 11-12 (1999-2000), 467-474M. VAN ESBROECK 467 PETER THE FULLER AND CYRUS OF EDESSA MICHEL VAN ESBROECK The aim of this communication is to focus on the liturgical activities of two bishops who were at the same time responsible for the religious life of both Antioch and Edessa. The main point is to observe the similarity of two sentences, which have been transmitted first among the fragments of John Diacrinomenos in Greek,1 and second by the Chronicle of Zuqnîn in Syriac.2 The parallel expressions of both reports seem to describe a unique initiative of the famous bishop of Antioch, which was immediately accepted in Edessa. There is, however, a difficulty for which we first have to analyse the wording quite closely. At first sight, taking the words of the Syriac chronicle in an al- most literal sense, the liturgical reform of Bishop Cyrus could appear as being having been by his successor, Peter. This is the reason why a closer analysis of the text is first required. This problem solved, the consequences of the liturgi- cal reform can be traced upon various liturgical features in the early middle East, where the precise date which clearly arise in both Greek and Syriac sources gives a new way to understand the development of some traditions even in the Caucasus. This is just the reason why the general theme of this conference, namely Antioch and Edessa, is the right place for developing that point of the history of liturgy. The Greek wording of John Diakrinomenos is the following: Pétron fjsì tòn Knaféa êpino±sai tò múron ên t±Ç êkkljsíaç êpì pantòv toÕ laoÕ ägiáhesqai, kaì t®n êpì t¬n üdátwn ên to⁄v qeofa- níoiv êpíkljsin ên t±Ç ëspéraç gínesqai, kaì ên ëkástjÇ eûx±Ç t®n qeotókon ônomáhesqai, kaì ên pásjÇ sunázei tò súmbolon légesqai. He says that the Peter the Fuller invented the rite that the Myron should be sanctified in the church in the presence of all the people, that the invocation (of the Spirit) on the water in the Theophaneia should occur in the evening, that in every prayer the Theotokos should be named and that the Symbol should be read in every liturgical meeting. 1 Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte, ed. G.C. Hansen (Berlin 1971), p. 155, no 547. (= Theodore Anagnostes). 2 Incerti Auctoris chronicon pseudo-dionysianum vulgo dictum, ed. J.B. Chabot, (Louvain 1927), p. 258, lines 13-19. 468 PETER THE FULLER AND CYRUS OF EDESSA In the Chronicle of Zuqnin or of Joshua the Stylite,3 at the end of the year 809 of the Seleucid era, we read the following sentence. “In that same year in the month of Îaziran on the fifth day the Bishop Mar Qura left this world and instead of him there was Peter. He added to the annual feasts the feast of the Hosannas, he started the rite to sanctify the water in the night in the early twilight of the feast of Epiphany, and that the oil of anointing should be consecrated in the presence of all the people on Maundy Thursday with the remaining feasts”. When both reports are read together, it becomes difficult to think that they describe independent liturgical reforms. Especially striking is the mention “in the presence of all the people” on both sides, and the mention of the night or the evening for the blessing of the waters. But, of course, the reports are inde- pendent, and complete one another. If this reform is the same, and if we take into account the wording of the Syriac chronicle, we find an astounding occurrence. First at Antioch in the time of Peter the Fuller, who died in the year 488, the reform is presented as a new initiative. Then, when Kuros died on the 5th or the 6th of June of the year 809 of the Seleucid era, that is in the year 498, Peter of Edessa becomes Bishop and is supposed to have introduced exactly the same liturgical novel- ties. The logical reflex is to consider that the mention of the successor Peter in Edessa is a mere marginal observation. Cyrus became Bishop of Edessa in the year 782, succeeding Nonus, that is in the year 471. Now, two years before, Peter the Fuller came for the first time to Antioch and took the place of Bishop Martyrius, enjoying the aid of the Apollinarist circles of Antioch.4 He was promptly removed by emperor Leo I in 471. When the anti-emperor Basiliskos took the power against Zeno, Peter the Fuller was a second time Bishop of Antioch from 475 to 477. He was then banished to north Caucasus for some years, but came back a third time in Antioch from 485 to 488. The reason for his return is that his predecessor, Bishop Callandion, accepted the anti-em- 3 For the succession of the Syriac Chronicles, and the place of the Zuqnin Chronicle, the most easy description will be found in S.P. Brock, ‘Syriac historical writing: a survey of the main sources', in Journal of the Iraqi Academy V, (Baghdad 1979/80), p. 316 (reprinted in Studies in Syriac Christianity, Variorum 1992, I, p.11). 4 M. van Esbroeck, The Memra on the Parrot by Isaac of Antioch, in The Journal of Theo- logical Studies, 47 (1996), p. 465-466. M. VAN ESBROECK 469 peror Leontios in Antioch.5 Each time he had been able to function as a bishop in Antioch, Peter the Fuller made himself known by several liturgical novel- ties, many of which are more famous than those mentioned by Diacrinomenos. Peter the Fuller was bishop for no more than seven years in Antioch, and per- haps only for five years. During all that time, Cyrus was quite normally bishop from 471 to 498, 27 years without a gap, and he died ten years after Peter the Fuller. The only reasonable way to read the Greek and Syriac reports is to at- tribute a series of liturgical reforms to Peter the Fuller, and to register that they were fully accepted by the bishop of Edessa just at the time they began to work. The liturgical innovations of Peter the Fuller in Antioch never occurred without pronounced opposition. Internal discrepancies between different chronicles make it difficult to reconstruct an accurate chronology for his many new ritual innovations. Theodore Anagnostes says about his first appearance in Antioch: “ When Martyrios had been forced to retire, the Fuller seized the see in a tyrannical manner”.6 But soon, in the year 471, Peter the Fuller was sent back for penance into original convent of the Akoimetes near Constanti- nople. When Basiliskos chose a strong anti-chalcedonical polity, he set Peter up again in Antioch in the year 475; Theodore Anagnostes writes: “Julianos the bishop of Antioch after Martyrios, died from the bitterness of the agitation, The Fuller invaded the See and devoted himself to anathematizings and trou- bles, during which murders and robberies took place because of the addition to the Trishagion.”7 This is less accurately written down by the Chronicle for the year 846: “In the Church of Antioch, when Peter the Fuller remained on the See for two years, Johannes (that is Julianos) succeeded him for two years, and after him Stephanus, and after him too another Stephanus, who was perforated by reeds and thrown down into the Orontes. And after him Callandion, and af- ter him Peter five years, and Palladios seven years.”8 The five years for Peter until the year 488 are most probably calculated from the time when Callandion was no more capable of retaining on the See of Antioch. The same Chronicle devotes another paragraph to Mar Isaac, the poet of Edessa, who dedicated his poem on the Parrot who was able to sing the trishagion with the addition “Qui crucifixus pro nobis”. The chronicle adds: “In the time of Petrus the Fuller, that formula ö staurwqeív was confirmed in all the churches from the Ori- ent.”9 Using that little sentence, it is possible to assert that Cyrus of Edessa did agree with Peter the Fuller. One should observe that the so-called chronicle of 5 Ibid., p. 467. 6 Theodore Anagnostes, p. 109, no 392. 7 Id., p. 114, no 410. 8 Chronica Minora II, ed. E.-W-Brooks, (Louvain 1904), Text, p. 218. Latin translation, id., (Louvain 1955), p. 166. 9 Id., Text, p. 217, Translation p. 165. 470 PETER THE FULLER AND CYRUS OF EDESSA Edessa, which is less interested in the orthodoxy of that formula, gives an ac- count under the year 763, that is 452: “Then Mar Isaac the writer and the archimandrit became famous”.10 This Mar Isaac could possibly be the same poet. In that poem, there are of some expressions which may fit the addition to that sort of Trishagion which was proposed by Callandion before Peter came back for the third time allegedly between 477 and 483: the Bishop proposed to add Xristòv Basileúv to the “Crucified”.11 But Callandion accepted the en- trance of the anti-emperor Leontios on 27th July 484. This is surely the reason why emperor Zeno put Peter the Walker a third time in Antioch in the year 485, where the old bishop proclaimed the Henoticon according to the desire of the monarch. It is probable that he began the blessing of the waters in his last period, for we still have his communion letter to Peter Mongos in Alexan- dria,12 where it is clearly affirmed that the Council of Chalcedon did not add any new concepts to the council of Nicea.