Pope Peter II

Overview

Pope Peter II was a saint and the twenty-first patriarch of the See of Saint Mark, with a patriarchate dated to 373–380. He succeeded Athanasius I, who had personally designated him for the Alexandrian throne; by the time of Athanasius’s death, Peter was already an elderly man, known for piety and fidelity to Athanasian theology.¹

His patriarchate was marked by renewed opposition to the ecclesiastical position established under Athanasius, an attack on the church in which Peter was present, and his subsequent flight to Rome. The account in The Coptic Encyclopedia connects his years of exile with the spread of Egyptian monastic rule in the West and with participation in a Roman council that condemned Apollinarianism.³⁵⁸⁹

History and origins

Place in the patriarchal succession

The encyclopedia’s chronological table places Peter between Athanasius I, the twentieth patriarch, whose tenure it dates to 326–373, and Timothy I, the twenty-second patriarch, whose tenure it dates to 380–385. Both that table and the biographical entry agree on Peter’s own dates of 373–380.¹²

The table records Peter’s provenance as “unknown.” The biographical passage begins with his designation by Athanasius and describes his advanced age and religious reputation, rather than providing a birthplace, family history, or account of his earlier career.¹²

Athanasius’s choice made Peter’s accession an intended continuation of his predecessor’s leadership. The encyclopedia nevertheless interprets the transition as an opportunity for opponents who had been restrained during Athanasius’s lifetime: Peter inherited his predecessor’s theological commitments, but also the opposition directed against them.¹³

Renewed opposition in Alexandria

According to the encyclopedia, the remaining Arian supporters in Alexandria gathered under Lucius, an Arian presbyter. It describes an alliance between these supporters, members of the city’s Jewish population, whom it characterizes as oppressed, and Egyptian pagans; their stated objective was to recover ground lost during Athanasius’s patriarchate.³

The account places this local struggle within the political circumstances of Emperor Valens, whose reign it dates to 364–378. Valens was occupied with disagreements with his brother Valentinian I, the Western coemperor, whose reign is given as 364–375, and consequently was not concentrating on developments in Alexandria.⁴

This explanation makes the timing of the uprising important: the transition from Athanasius to Peter coincided with an interval in which imperial attention was directed elsewhere. The encyclopedia presents that combination as favorable to Peter’s opponents, rather than treating the outbreak as an isolated dispute within the clergy.³⁴

The attack on the church of Saint Theonas

Palladius, identified as the pagan prefect, became the principal leader of the opposition described in the account. He assembled a crowd of pagans, Jews, and Arians to storm the church of Saint Theonas; the encyclopedia also notes that Syrians had nearly arrested Athanasius in the same church in 356.⁵

Peter initially resisted surrender. The attackers eventually forced open the church doors, and the source describes severe profanation of the sanctuary while Peter fled. Its narrative thus links the challenge to Peter’s authority with violence against the church in which he had taken his stand.⁵

The details of his immediate escape are not entirely secure. The encyclopedia mentions stories that Peter was seized and imprisoned, but explicitly states that this claim cannot be authenticated, noting his reappearance shortly afterward. His alleged imprisonment must therefore remain distinct from the more firmly stated account of the attack and flight.⁶

Exile in Rome and connections with other church leaders

Support from Damasus

Peter received support from Damasus, bishop of Rome. Damasus sent a delegate to Alexandria, but hostile crowds arrested the envoy and sent him to the mines of Phenne; the account therefore records both external support for Peter and the difficulties encountered by a representative attempting to act on it.⁷

After remaining in concealment, Peter followed the example of Athanasius and sought safety by fleeing to Rome. The encyclopedia says that he is reported to have spent about five years there in voluntary exile; its qualified wording should be retained rather than converted into an exact chronology of departure and return.⁸

Egyptian monasticism in the West

During his Roman exile, Peter propagated the Egyptian monastic rule in the West. This activity gives the exile a significance beyond personal refuge: in the encyclopedia’s account, displacement from Alexandria also became an occasion for transmitting Egyptian monastic practice to a Western setting.⁸

The statement concerns the Egyptian monastic rule generally. The supplied account does not identify particular monasteries, named disciples, written regulations, or individual foundations associated with Peter’s work, so his contribution can be described as transmission and promotion without specifying a more detailed institutional program.⁸

Theology and meaning

Continuity with Athanasius

The defining theological characterization of Peter in the biographical entry is his loyalty to “the principles of Athanasian theology.” His piety and adherence to Athanasius’s position are presented together, making theological continuity part of the source’s explanation of his suitability to succeed the earlier patriarch.¹

The struggle after his accession is correspondingly framed around renewed Arian activity. Lucius appears as the leader of the remaining Arian supporters, while Peter stands within the theological succession of Athanasius; the account therefore connects the contest over the Alexandrian see with an existing doctrinal conflict.¹³

The Roman council and Apollinarianism

Peter also participated in a Roman council, probably in 377, at which Apollinarianism was condemned, particularly in relation to Antioch. The date is expressly tentative in the encyclopedia and should not be treated as certain.⁹

This notice places Peter within a further doctrinal controversy during his exile, distinct from the Alexandrian struggle against Lucius and his Arian supporters. The passage establishes his participation and the council’s condemnation, but supplies neither a speech by Peter nor a theological work explaining his position in detail.³⁹

Sainthood, naming, and historical identification

The biographical entry explicitly calls Peter II a saint, and the encyclopedia’s index lists him as “Peter II, Saint and Patriarch.” The index also directs readers to a feast-day reference, although the supplied excerpt does not give the date or describe the observance.¹¹⁰

Peter II should be distinguished from Peter I, the seventeenth patriarch, who served from 300 to 311 and is traditionally called the last or “seal” of the martyrs. The earlier Peter’s martyrdom, persecution narratives, and disputes with Melitius belong to that patriarch’s biography, not to the fourth-century successor of Athanasius.¹¹¹

He is likewise distinct from Peter III Mongus, the twenty-seventh patriarch, whose tenure is dated to 480–488. The latter’s disputes concerning the Council of Chalcedon and acceptance of the Henoticon belong to a later patriarchate and should not be incorporated into Peter II’s theological history.¹¹²

Historical evidence and open questions

The supplied chronology and biographical entry agree on Peter’s position in the succession and his dates of office. Their different emphases are complementary: the table establishes his placement between Athanasius and Timothy, while the biography describes the opposition, flight, Roman support, monastic activity, and conciliar participation that marked his patriarchate.¹²³⁷⁸⁹

Within that narrative, three qualifications are especially important: the imprisonment story is unauthenticated, the Roman exile is reported as lasting about five years, and the council is dated only probably to 377. Preserving these distinctions allows Peter’s life to be described without giving uncertain episodes the same status as the source’s explicit identification of him as saint and patriarch.¹⁶⁸⁹