p. 214, vol. xi. p. 336; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. Dissert. i. p. 15). The other, who is termed Petrus Siculus or Peter the Sicilian, and acquired his bishopric after A. D. 790, wrote a life of St. Athanasius, bishop of Methone in the Peloponnesus; and is probably the same person as the Petrus Siculus who was sent by the emperor Basil the Macedonian [BASILIUS I. MACEDO] to Tabrica in the district or on the frontier of Melitene near the Euphrates, to negotiate an exchange of prisoners, apparently with the chiefs of the Paulicians; a purpose which, after a residence of nine months, he effected. He wrote an account of the Paulicians, or as he designated them, Manichaeans, Both these works have been published in a Latin version: 1. The life of St. Athanasius is given in the Latin version of the jesuit Franciscus Blanditius in the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists, Januar. vol. ii. p. 1125, &c. It is entitled Petri Siculi, humillimi Argivorum Episcopi, Funebris Oratio ix B. Athanasium, Methones Episcopum. 2. The account of the Paulicians was translated into Latin, and published by Matthaeus Raderus, 4to. Ingolstadt, 1604, and has been reprinted in various editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum. It is entitled Petri Siculi Historia de vana et stolida Manichaeorum Haeresi tanquam Archiepiscopo Bulga rorum nuncupata. It is in the sixteenth volume of the Lyon edition of the Bibliotheca, fol. 1677. It is to be observed that Le Quien considers the Elogium SS. Cosmae et Damiani to be by Petrus Siculus, and not by another Peter. (Miraeus, Auctarium de Scriptor. Eccles. c. 256; Vossius, De Historicis Graecis, lib. iv. c. 19; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 870, vol. ii. p. 55; Acta Sanctorum, l.e. ; Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. x. p. 201; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. ii. col. 184.)

been written after the rise of Mohammedanism. never been printed (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. x. 5. Пéтроν кýрνyua, Petri Praedicatio, mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (Stromat. libb. i. vi.), Eusebius (H. E. iii. 3), and Jerome (l. c.). A few fragments of this work have been collected by Grabe (Spicileg. vol. i. p. 62, &c.), from Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, Gregory Nazianzen, and others. Dodwell supposed that the Epistola ad Jacobum (No. 3) was the introduction to the Praedicatio, but his opinion is rejected by Grabe (ibid. p. 59). The work entitled Aidaσkaλia Пéтрov, Doctrina Petri, quoted by Origen (Praef. ad Libros, Пepì dpxwv, vers. Rufini) and Damascenus (Parallel. ii. 16), is probably only another name for the Praedicatio (Grabe, ibid. pp. 56, 57). The Karnxnois Пéтрov, Catechesis Petri, formerly in the Coislin library at Paris, is also apparently the same work. 6. Petri Judicium s. Duae Viae. This work is mentioned by Rufinus (Exposit. Symboli) and Jerome (l. c.). Grabe suspects that no such work ever existed; but that the supposition of its existence arose from Rufinus mistaking pua, the abbreviation of кýрvyμа, for κрlua, and that Jerome was misled by the error of Rufinus. The work is certainly not mentioned by Eusebius. 7. A work entitled Η θεία λειτουργία τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου | Пéтрoυ, Missa Apostolica s. Divinum Sacrificium S. Apostoli Petri, was published in Greek, with a Latin version by Fed. Morel. Paris, 1595, and has been reprinted (sometimes in Latin only) in various editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum. The Пérpov Tepíodo, or Circuitus s. Peregrinationes s. Itinerarium Petri, mentioned repeatedly by the ancients, appear to be only so many titles for the Recognitiones of Clement. The Пéтрον кal 'Aπíшvos (8. 'АTTíшvos) diáλoyo, Petri et Apionis Disputationes (Euseb. H.E. iii. 38; Hieron. De Viris Illustr. c. 15), was not ascribed to Peter as its author, but to Clement of Rome. Eusebius speaks of it as a spurious work, recently produced, and not noticed by more ancient 9. CHRYSOLANUS or GROSOLANUS, was archwriters. Valesius (not. ad Euseb. 1. c.) thinks it bishop of Milan, A. D. 1110, having previously was a second, and now lost part of the Recognitiones. held some less important see. He was sent by The Praecepta Petri et Pauli and the Пéтрov кal Pope Paschal II. on a mission to the emperor Пaúλov Tŵv áɣlwv àñоσтóλwv diaтágeis, Petri et Alexius I. Comnenus, and engaged eagerly in the Pauli SS. Apostolorum Constitutiones, now or for- controversy on the procession of the Holy Spirit. merly extant in the Medicean library at Florence, His only title to be noticed in this work, within and the Bodleian at Oxford, appear to be portions the limits of which he does not properly fall, is of the well-known Constitutiones Apostolicae (Grabe, derived from his having composed Пpos Toy Baor Spicileg. vol. i. pp. 85, 86). The Planetus Petri λέα κύριον Αλέξιον τὸν Κομνηνόν λόγος, κ. τ. λ. Apostoli Vicarii (Fabric. Cod. Apocryph. N. T. Ad Imperatorem Dominum Alexium Comnenum vol. iii. p. 721) is one of a parcel of forged docu-Oratio, &c., designed to prove the procession of the ments, partly written on parchment, partly inscribed on leaden plates, professing to be Latin translations from the Arabic, which were dug up in a mountain near Granada, near the close of the sixteenth century. The Epistola ad Pipinum Regem Francorum et Carolum ac Carlomannum Filios ejus, written by Pope Stephen III. in the name of the Apostle Peter, soliciting aid against the Lombards, is regarded by Fabricius rather as a piece of rhetorical affectation than a fraud. The Epistola is given by Baronius, in his Annales Ecclesiastici, ad ann. 755, xvii. &c. (Grabe, Spicileg. SS. Patrum, vol. i. pp. 55-81; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 6; Fabric. Codex Apocryphus N. T. passim.)

7. Of ARGOS. There were two bishops of Argos of the name of Peter, authors of works extant in MS. or print. One of these wrote an Elogium Cosmae et Damiani SS. Anargyrorum in Asia s. Oratio in sanctos et gloriosos Anargyros et Thaumaturgos Cosmum et Damianum, which has

8. CHARTOPHYLAX. [No. 15.]

Holy Spirit from the Son as well as from the Father, published in the Graecia Orthodoxa of Allatius, vol. i. p. 379, &c. 4to, Rome, 1652, and given in a Latin version by Baronius, Annal. Eccles. ad ann. 1116. viii. &c. (Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. xi. p. 335; Cave, Hist. Lill. ad ann. 1110, vol. ii. p. 191.)

10. CHRYSOLOGUS. This ecclesiastic (a saint in the Romish Calendar) is thought to have been born at Forum Cornelii (now Imola) in the northern part of Italy, and was educated by Cornelius, a bishop, and perhaps (though Tillemont doubts it) of that city. He received ordination as presbyter, or, as some think, as deacon only, from the same prelate; and became archbishop of Ravenna, as Tillemont thinks, before A. D. 431, but according to Cave in A. D. 433, and died in or before a. D. 451, in which year Pope Leo the Great wrote a letter to a Leo bishop of Ravenna, who must have been a successor of Peter Chrysologus. The state

16. Of EDESSA. Peter, a Syrian by birth, and a presbyter of the church at Edessa, and an eminent preacher, wrote Tractatus variarum Causarum, treatises on various subjects, and composed Psalms in metre like those of Ephrem the Syrian. Trithemius ascribes to him Commentarii in Psalmos and says that he wrote in Syriac. All his works have perished. (Gennadius, De Viris Illustr. c. 74; Trithem. De Scriptorib. Eccles. c. 167.)

Petrus Diaconus is the canonist is not clear. | No. 2.], but it is likely that the Monophysites (Leunclav. Jus Gr. Rom. 1. c. ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. generally are meant,) and excited much dissension vol. xi. p. 334; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 1092, and tumult, among other causes of which was his vol. ii. p. 161; Catalog. MSS. Biblioth. Reg. vol. ii. adding to the sacred hymn called the Trisagion, pp. 182, 606, fol. Paris, 1740.) the words "who wast crucified for us," which constituted one of the party tests of the Monophysites, and his anathematizing 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 honourably 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.

17. FULLO, or sometimes retaining the Greek word GNAPHEUS or CNAPHEUS (Пéтpos ó гvapeús or Kvapeús), 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. c. 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. iii. § 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. i. 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 if, 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,

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 persua sion 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 banished to Pityus, from whence he contrived to escape, or was allowed to go to Euchaïta in Pontus, where he found refuge in the church of St. Theodore. Tillemont thinks he even returned to Antioch, but this is quite unlikely. John Codonatus meanwhile succeeded to the vacant patriarchate; but he 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 Vetus of Pappus says the second) of the two Stephens of Nestorianism, and apparently succeeded in deposing him: for Theophanes says, that a council of the Eastern bishops, assembled at Laodiceia by the emperor's command, "restored him" (arоKaTÉOTNOEV) 10

nis episcopal throne. The second Stephen (Tillemont and Valesius, Not. ad Evagr. H. E. iii. 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 indeed, 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 Illus and Leontius [ILLUS]; and the Monophysites, now again completely in the ascendant, 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 restoration 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 his 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 Concilio 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 Valesius (Observation. Ecclestiastic. ud Eragrium, lib. i.; De Petro Fullone et de Synodis adversus eum congregatis, c. 4), and other modern critics. (Evagrius, H. E. iii. 5, 10, 16, 23, cum not. Valesii; Theodor. Lector. H. E. i. 20-22, 30, 31, ii. 2, cum not. Valesii; Breviculus de Historia Eutychianistarum s. Gesta de Nomine Acaci apud Concilia (vol. iv. col. 1079, ed. Labbe); Liberatus, Breviarium, c. 18; Theophanes, Chroog. 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, Laudatio S. Barnabae, c. 3, apud Acta Sanctoram, 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.)

18. GNAPHEUS. [No. 17.] 19. MAGISTER. [No. 25.] 20. MANSUR. [No. 13.]

21. MEDIOLANENSIS, of MILAN. [No. 9.] 22. MONGUS or MOGGUS (Пéтpos ó Moyyos), Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria in the fifth century. Liberatus (Breviarium, c. 16) gives him also the surname of BLAESUS, the STAMMERER. He was ordained deacon by Dioscorus, successor of

VOL. IIL

Cyril, who held the patriarchate for seven years (A.D. 444-451). Peter was the ready participator in the violences of Dioscorus, and earnestly embraced his cause, when he was deposed by the Council of Chalcedon, withdrawing from the communion of the successor of Dioscorus, Proterius, who supported the cause of the council, and uniting in the opposition raised by Timothy Aelurus and others. (Liberat. ibid. c. 15.) He was consequently sentenced by Proterius, apparently to deposition and excommunication. (Liberat. ibid.) Whether he was banished, as well as Timothy Aelurus, is not clear, but he seems to have accompanied Timothy to Alexandria, and to have been his chief supporter when, after the death of the emperor Marcian, he returned, and either murdered Proterius or excited the tumults that led to his death A. D. 457. Timothy Aelurus was immediately raised to the patriarchate by his partizans, but was shortly after banished by the enperor Leo I., the Thracian, who had succeeded Marcian: Peter also was obliged to flee. Another Timothy, surnamed Salofaciolus, a supporter of the Council of Chalcedon, was appointed to succeed Proterius in the patriarchate. When, in the following reign of Zeno, or rather during the short usurpation of Basiliscus, Timotheus Aelurus was recalled from exile (A.D. 475), and was sent from Constantinople to Alexandria to re-occupy that see, he was joined by Peter (Liberatus, ibid. c. 16), and his party, and with their support drove out his competitor Salofaciolus, who took refuge in a monastery at Canopus. On the downfal of Basiliscus and the restoration of Zeno, Timothy Aelurus was allowed, through the emperor's compassion for his great age, to retain his see; but when on his death (A.D. 477) the Monophysite bishops of Egypt, without waiting for the emperor's directions, elected Peter (who had previously obtained the rank of archdeacon) as his successor, the emperor's indignation was so far roused, that he determined to put the new prelate to death. His anger, however, somewhat abated, and Peter was allowed to live, but was deprived of the patriarchate, to which Timothy Salofaciolus was restored. On the death of Salofaciolus, which occurred soon after, John of Tabenna, surnamed Talaia or Talaida [JOANNES, No. 115], was appointed to succeed him; but he was very shortly deposed by order of Zeno, on some account not clearly ascertained, and Peter Mongus was unexpectedly recalled from Euchaïta in Pontus, whither he had been banished, and was (A.D. 482) restored to his see. His restoration appears to have been part of the policy of Zeno, to unite if possible all parties, a policy which Peter, whose age and misfortunes appear to have abated the fierceness of his party spirit, was ready to adopt. He consequently subscribed the Henoticon of the emperor, and readmitted the Proterian party to communion on their doing the same. John of Tabenna had meanwhile fled to Rome, where the pope Simplicius, who, with the Western Church, steadily supported the Council of Chalcedon, embraced his cause, and wrote to the emperor in his behalf. Felix II, or III., who succeeded Simplicius (A.D. 483) was equally zealous on the same side. Peter had some difficulty in maintaining his position. In order to recover the favour of his Monophysite friends, whom his subservience to Zeno's policy had alienated, he anathematized the Council of Chalcedon; and then, to avert the displeasure of Acacius of Constantinople and of the

Q

sequently despatched intelligence of these important events to the emperor, while he himself waited at Aulon for further instructions. Justinian, without delay, undertook to vindicate the cause of the im

Court, to whose temporizing course this decisive step was adverse, he denied that he had done so. Evagrius (H. E. iii. 17) has preserved the letter he wrote to Acacius on this occasion, which is the only writing of Peter now extant. By this tergi-prisoned queen, and directed Peter to declare his versation he preserved his see, and was enabled to brave the repeated anathemas of the Western Church. When, however, to recover the attachment of the Monophysites, he again anathematized the Council of Chalcedon; and Euphemius, the newly elected patriarch of Constantinople, forsaking the policy of his predecessors, took part with the Western Church against him, his difficulties became more serious. What result this combination against him might have produced, cannot now be known; death re-instigating Theodatus to commit the murder, being moved him from the scene of strife A. D. 490, shortly before the death of Zeno. He was succeeded in the see of Alexandria by another Monophysite, Athanasius II. (Evagrius, H. E. iii. 11-23; Breviculus Historiae Eutychianistarum s. Gesta de Nomine Acaci, apud Concilia, vol. iv. col. 1079, ed. Labbe; Liberatus, Breviarium, c. 15-18; Theophanes, Chronographia, pp. 107-115, ed. Paris, pp. 86-92, ed. Venice, vol. i. pp. 194-206, ed. Bonn; Victor Tunnunensis, Chronicon; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. xvi. ; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 477, vol. i. p. 455; Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. xi. p. 336; and Synodicon Vetus, apud Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xii. pp. 398, 399; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. ii. col. 416, &c.)

purpose openly to Theodatus. Peter immediately proceeded (A.D. 535), to Italy; but his arrival was speedily followed by the murder of Amalasuntha, an event extremely opportune for the ambitious views of Justinian, who, through Peter, immediately declared war against the Ostrogoths, on account of the queen's death. Such is the account given in one place by Procopius (ibid. c. 4); but he elsewhere (Hist. Arcan. c. 16) charges Peter with secretly commissioned to do so by the jealousy of Theodora, Justinian's wife, who held out to him, as an inducement to comply with her desire, the hope of great advancement. The baseness of Theodatus was alarmed by the declaration of war, and by the successes of Belisarius, who rapidly conquered Sicily; and he negotiated with Peter, who had not yet quitted Ravenna, a peace by which he ceded Sicily to Justinian, engaged to pay a yearly tribute in money, and to furnish him yearly with a body of Ostrogothic soldiers; he consented also to restrict the exercise of his own power within very narrow limits, and to exercise it under the supremacy of Justinian. He at the same time commissioned Peter, in case the emperor should reject these terms, to promise an unconditional abdication; binding him, however, by oath not to reveal this second offer, unless the emperor should have previously rejected the first. Peter returned to Byzantium: the first offer was rejected, and the second then divulged and accepted; and Peter with another ambassador, Atha

23. Of NICOMEDEIA. Of the prelates, who with certain deacons and monks had to clear themselves in the third Constantinopolitan or sixth oecumenical council (A.D. 680), from the suspicion of holding the Monothelite heresy, the leader was Peter, metropolitan of Nicomedeia. Peter and his companions appeared before the council, and delivered to them, upon oath, solemn written confes-nasius, was sent back to Italy to complete the sions of their belief in the orthodox doctrine of two wills in Christ; the confessions were of considerable length, and all exactly alike, and are given in the original Greek with a considerable hiatus, but completely in a Latin version in the Acta Concilii CPolitani III., Actio x. ; or according to one of the Latin versions of the Acta given by Hardouin, in Actio ix. (Concilia, vol. vi. col. 784, 842, ed. Labbe, vol. iii. col. 1202, 1248, 1537, 1561, ed. Hardouin; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 680, vol. i. p. 595.)

24. ORATOR. [No. 25.]

25. PATRICIUS et MAGISTER, a Byzantine historian of the sixth century. He was born at Thessalonica (Procop. De Bell. Gotthic. i. 3), in the province of Macedonia, then included in the praetorian praefecture of Illyricum, on which account he is said to have been " an Illyrian." (Procop.l. c.) Peter settled at Constantinople, where he acquired distinction as a rhetor or advocate, a profession for which his cultivated mind, agreeable address, and natural powers of persuasion, were admirably adapted. These qualifications pointed him out to the discernment of the emperor Justinian I. as suited for diplomatic life, and he was sent by him (A.D. 534) as ambassador to Amalasuntha, regent, and Theodatus, one of the chieftains of the Ostrogoths in Italy. On his way, at Aulon, near the entrance of the Adriatic, on the coast of Epeirus, or perhaps before his arrival there, Peter heard of the death of Athalaric, the young Ostrogothic king, of the marriage of Amalasuntha and Theodatus and their exaltation to the throne of Italy, and of their subsequent dissensions and the imprisonment of Amalasuntha. He con

arrangement. But Theodatus meanwhile, encou raged by some disasters which the Byzantine forces had sustained in Dalmatia, had changed his mind: he not only refused to fulfil his promise of submission, but violated the law of nations by imprisoning the ambassadors. (Ibid. De Bell. Gotthico, i. 6—8.) Peter and his colleague remained in captivity until Belisarius, by detaining some Ostrogothic ambassadors, compelled Vitiges, who had succeeded Theodatus, to release them about the end of A. D. 438. (Ibid. ii. 22.) On his return, Peter received, as Procopius (Hist. Arcan. c. 16,) intimates, by Theodora's interest, and as a reward for his participation in procuring Amalasuntha's death, the high appointment of magister officiorum, but incurred, according to the same authority, general odium by the part he had acted. He exercised his authority with the most unbridled rapacity; for although he was, according to Procopius, naturally of a mild temper, and by no means insolent, he was at the same time the most dishonest of all mankind, κλεπτίστατος δὲ ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων. (Ibid. c. 24.)

Several years afterwards (about A. D. 550), Peter, who retained his post of magister officiorum, and had in addition acquired the dignity of patrician (a dignity which Niebuhr not inaptly compares to that of privy councillor in England), was sent by Justinian to negotiate a peace with Chosroës I. king of Persia; but Chosroës, who did not desire peace, dismissed him, with a promise of sending an ambassador of his own to Constantinople to effect the proposed arrangement. Shortly afterwards (A. D. 551 or 552) Peter was engaged