ON ST. PETER OF ARABIA, BISHOP AND MARTYR, PERHAPS THE SAME AS ST. PETER OF CAPITOLIAS, IN ARABIA,
IN THE YEAR 743.
A HISTORICAL-CRITICAL COLLECTION.
Who this Saint is, and when he was put to martyrdom.
Peter, bishop and M., in Arabia. (S.) Peter of Capitolias, in Arabia. (S.)
BY C. B. AS AUTHOR.
Baronius and the other most learned men who reformed the Roman Martyrology By the St. Peter who is announced today by the Roman and by Castellan, announce today this St. Peter, bishop and martyr, thus: At Damascus, of saint Peter, bishop and martyr, who, being accused before the prince of the Agarenes of teaching the faith of Christ, had his tongue, hands and feet cut off, and, being fastened to a cross, consummated his martyrdom. Castellan too commemorates St. Peter, bishop and martyr, today with the same announcement, framed in almost as many words, inasmuch as he inserted the whole Roman Martyrology, rendered into French, in his Universal Martyrology. But, someone will say, neither the Roman Martyrology nor Castellan's Universal one expresses the city of which the Peter they celebrate was bishop. Of what St. Peter, bishop and martyr, then, is there talk in those two sacred Calendars? Is it perhaps of St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, whom Theophanes mentions in his Chronography under the second year of Constantine Copronymus? Before I bring out my opinion on this matter, since what has been recorded about St. Peter
metropolitan of Damascus by that holy chronographer, contemporary with this Saint, will often be of use here, I bring the whole of it forward in this place; and I transcribe here the very Greek words of Theophanes, so that the learned reader may be able to pass his own judgment on the new Latin version which I shall subjoin to them, because they have not been rendered into Latin with sufficient accuracy, as it appears, either anciently by Anastasius the librarian or very recently by Jacques Goar.
[2] They run thus: Ὀυαλὶδ δὲ Πέτρον τὸν ἀγιώτατον μητροπολίτην Δαμαστκοῦ γλωττοτομηθῆναι ἐκέλευσε, ὠς ἀνάφανδον ἐλέγχοντα τὴν τῶν Αράβων καὶ Μανιχαίων δυσσέβειαν. Ἐξώρισεν δὲ αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἐυδαίμονα Αραβίαν, ἔνθα καὶ τελειοῦται μαρτυρήσας ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τρανῶς ἐκφωνήσας τὴν θείαν λειτουργίαν, ὡς οἱ διηγησάμενοι φασὶν ἰδίαις ἀκοαῖς πεπληροφορεῖσθαι.
St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, of whom Theophanes here speaks, Here now is the Latin version drawn up by me: Further, Walid (the prince, namely, of the Arabs) ordered the tongue of Peter, the most holy metropolitan of Damascus, to be cut out, inasmuch as he openly refuted the impiety of the Arabs and of the Manichees. Besides this, he banished him into Arabia Felix; where also he is consummated by martyrdom, since he bore witness to Christ and celebrated the divine Sacrifice of the Mass with a clear voice, as those who have reported it affirm that they learned with their own ears. So Theophanes, setting out in a brief elogium what pertains to St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus. I now enquire of what St. Peter, bishop and martyr, there is talk in the two sacred Calendars praised above. Saint Peter, bishop, or rather metropolitan, of Damascus, of whom Theophanes speaks in the words just transcribed here, is announced by Galesinius at the 4th of January; but among us at the same day he is reported among Those Passed Over in this way: "St. Peter, bishop of Damascus, martyr. Galesinius. Of him the Roman Martyrology at the 4th of October." And so, as everyone will understand from these words, our Predecessors were of the opinion that by Peter, bishop and martyr, who is inserted today into the Roman Martyrology, was designated St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, put to martyrdom by the Arabs, as appears from Theophanes.
[3] is shown to be designated. Further, the same opinion was embraced by Castellan in the Table of Saints subjoined to his Universal Martyrology, and by the author of the Index to the Roman Martyrology printed by the Moretus press in the year 1701; and Baronius had already gone before these, as also before our Predecessors, in the same view. For in the Annotations which he added to the Roman Martyrology he observes thus today on Peter, bishop and martyr: Of the same (Peter, namely, bishop and martyr) on this day the Greeks in the Menology (that of Sirleto, namely, which Baronius always understands by the Menology of the Greeks) also describe his contest … The same (Peter, bishop and martyr) is mentioned by Cedrenus in the Compendium, in the second year of Copronymus. The Peter of whom Cedrenus speaks in his Compendium of Histories under the 2nd year of Constantine Copronymus is no other than St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, killed for the faith by the Arabs, on Theophanes's testimony; and therefore, since the reformer of the Roman Martyrology certainly had ascertained which Saints he was speaking of in it, I here readily assent to him, moved by the example of my predecessors, and am persuaded that it is St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, killed by the Arabs — who moreover is nowhere else inscribed in the Roman Martyrology — who is celebrated in it today. Nor can I be moved to think the contrary by the fact that Peter, bishop and martyr, is placed by the Roman Martyrology, in which he is inscribed, at Damascus, whereas Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, ended the course of his life not there but in Arabia, as is clear from the words of Theophanes transcribed here above.
[4] [This holy Metropolitan, from the St. Peter of Capitolias inscribed in the Menology of Sirleto] For since Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, though he did not consummate his martyrdom at Damascus, yet began it there, on Theophanes's testimony, it could come about that — even though he probably did not there obtain among the Christians groaning under the Saracen yoke that ecclesiastical cult customarily paid to the Saints, by reason of which he might be placed at Damascus — he nevertheless long remained in honourable and famous memory among them, and for that cause was placed at Damascus by the framers of the Roman Martyrology. But another and far graver difficulty occurs here. For by today's Peter, bishop and martyr, of the Roman Martyrology there is also designated the Peter inscribed today in Sirleto's Menology of the Greeks and called Capitolius. This is hinted plainly enough by Baronius in the words transcribed here in the preceding number, and is clear even from the Roman Martyrology's announcement of St. Peter, bishop and martyr, alone, inasmuch as it is most manifestly drawn for the greatest part from the elogium with which Peter of Capitolias is honoured today in Sirleto. Wherefore, since from what has been said above today's Peter of the Roman Martyrology also designates Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, killed by the Arabs, it must needs be that the latter is not distinguished from Peter of Capitolias. But there is also reason why a distinction between Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, and Peter of Capitolias may not undeservedly seem to have to be made. For the latter is commemorated today in Sirleto thus: On the same day (the 4th of October) the commemoration of the holy martyr Peter of Capitolias. He, since he excelled many in wisdom, being joined in lawful marriage and having begotten three sons, entered upon the monastic life; and being made a presbyter by the bishop of Bostra, was accused before the prince of the Agarenes as a teacher of the Christians. And so, being led for the confession of Christ to the region of the Damascenes, his tongue was cut out: but, since he spoke the more clearly and quickly, his right hand and his feet were cut off; afterwards, his eyes being dug out, he was fastened to a cross, and, his head being cut off, he was given to the fire and plunged into the river.
[5] And so, if we must stand by these words of Sirleto, Peter of Capitolias consummated his glorious martyrdom for the faith not in Arabia Felix, and in the other sacred Calendars of the Greeks, as Theophanes reports of Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, but in the region of the Damascenes. And this is the first reason for which Peter of Capitolias may seem to have to be distinguished from Peter, metropolitan of Damascus. I now add the second. The printed Menaea of the Greeks — whom Maximus Margunius again closely follows here, as is his custom, in his Menology written in the modern Greek tongue — likewise celebrate today St. Peter of Capitolias with an elogium which agrees almost exactly with that of Sirleto already given, and which therefore I do not transcribe here; and before the elogium they set this announcement: Τῇ ἀυτῇ ἡμέρα τοῦ ἀγίου μάρτυρος Πέτρου Καπετωλείων, that is, On the same day, of the holy martyr Peter of the Capitolii; which sense is certainly imperfect and maimed, and seems to need to be supplied by the word bishop or some other synonym added immediately after the word of the Capitolii. For the Menaea, as it appears to me at least, wish it to be signified thereby that the Peter whom they commemorate was bishop of the Capitolii. I judge so because the same Peter who is commemorated in the Menaea is commemorated today also in the Basilian Menology; and in the elogium with which he is honoured in this latter sacred monument of the Greeks it is expressly affirmed that he was bishop of the Capitolii. But now, since this is so, and since at the same time St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, whom Theophanes praises, was not bishop of the Capitolii, it follows that this holy Metropolitan is undoubtedly different from Peter of Capitolias, provided only the Menaea and especially the Basilian Menology have a sure credit of their own. And thus, zealous reader, you now have two arguments fitted to persuade a distinction of Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, from Peter of Capitolias. Whether they also plainly prove it, I now enquire.
[6] No monument, no ancient author anywhere makes mention of any Peter killed for the faith by the Arabs who was bishop of the Capitolii; and the Menaea and both the Menologies already praised, different, or distinct, which hint that there existed a Peter who was bishop of the Capitolii, do not deserve sure and undoubted credit in this matter, inasmuch as they are destitute of all testimony of antiquity, and moreover can be called into doubt from another quarter, as I now show. According to the Basilian Menology — whose elogium concerning St. Peter, bishop, as it says, of the Capitolii, it has likewise not seemed good to transcribe here — this St. Peter was ἐλλὴν, that is, a heathen or gentile (for in the edition prepared by the zeal and labour of the most eminent Annibale Albani it is wrongly rendered a Greek), and converted many of the heathen to the faith when he had already embraced the doctrine of Christ; but if you look at the Menaea and at the elogium of Peter of Capitolias in Sirleto, which is taken from them as it appears, this Saint seems to have been born of Christian parents and never to have been a heathen. Besides, according to the Basilian Menology the same St. Peter was killed by idolaters in a persecution stirred up against the Christians; but according to Sirleto and the Menaea this was perpetrated not by idolaters but by the Agarenes or Saracens, who certainly were not idolaters. The writers, then, who framed those sacred Calendars of the Greeks disagree very much among themselves here, and therefore it seems permissible to suspect that none of them had sufficiently ascertained what pertained to the St. Peter whom they celebrate. Hence, further, it can, as it appears, not undeservedly be doubted whether those same framers of the sacred Calendars — who moreover are very often elsewhere caught straying from the truth — did not wrongly make out of the city of Capitolias, in which, as the Menaea hand down, St. Peter, thence called Capitolius, was born and brought up, another city over which he presided as bishop; and likewise whether they did not ineptly note the region of the Damascenes, in which St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, began his martyrdom, instead of Arabia Felix, in which he consummated it. Perhaps therefore no St. Peter who was bishop of the Capitolii ever existed in the nature of things, and accordingly he whom the sacred Calendars of the Greeks celebrate is perhaps no other than Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, painted by the Greeks in one or two or perhaps even more false colours.
[7] however much Le Quien seems to think otherwise, he is perhaps not: And that anyone may the more readily believe this, he may also be moved by the fact that at least between Theophanes and the praised sacred Calendars of the Greeks there is a sufficiently correct agreement as regards the first kind of punishment which they narrate that St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, and St. Peter of Capitolias underwent among the Damascenes, and as regards its cause, and the miracle of the Saint speaking without a tongue. Le Quien nevertheless in his Oriens Christianus seems to distinguish Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, from Peter of Capitolias. For in volume 2 of that Work, column 836 and following, he reckons the former among the metropolitans of Damascus; but the latter in volume 3, column 718, among the bishops of Capitolias. Besides, in the latter of these two places he hints that he doubts whether the Peter whom the Basilian Menology and that of Sirleto, or of Canisius, commemorate was really bishop of Capitolias, and when he underwent martyrdom. Wherefore, since in the former place he fixes the killing of St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, as it appears, in the year 743, he seems certainly on this head alone to make Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, different from Peter of Capitolias. But whatever may be Le Quien's opinion in this part, Baronius for his part, as you will easily gather from what has been said, and Castellan in his Table of Saints cited above, think that Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, is the same as Peter of Capitolias; and I, impelled by the reasons already adduced, to those two writers
assent not unwillingly; which nevertheless I do only under this restriction, that I do not assert their opinion to be altogether certain. But now, if this should really chance to agree with the truth, then both Peter of Capitolias and Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, will certainly be worthy to be commemorated in the Roman Martyrology and in all the other sacred Calendars too; but if on the contrary it strays from the truth, then in all those same sacred Calendars Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, alone — whose sanctity is established from Theophanes, a writer of entire credit — will certainly deserve to be inscribed, and not Peter of Capitolias as well; inasmuch as he would thus be known only from the sacred Calendars of the Greeks, who sometimes reckon even the unworthy among the Saints; and since he is moreover inscribed in them without a note of time, this will also leave room to doubt whether he flourished before or after the rise of the Photian schism, and therefore whether he ever had a cult paid him by the orthodox Greeks.
[8] And hence it is that I shall now set about elucidating only what pertains to Peter, and it was because he openly reproved the impiety of the Arabs, metropolitan of Damascus. This Saint of ours suffered because he openly refuted the impiety of the Arabs or Saracens and of the Manichees, as Theophanes teaches at number 2. For the Arabs or Saracens, followers of the Mahometan sect, in the eighth century, in which the Saint presided as bishop over the church of Damascus, were masters throughout the whole breadth of Syria and in Damascus itself, the city of that most ample region. Mingled with these lived men of a sect no less impious, sprouting up anew — the Manichees — who from time to time even incited the Mahometan princes of the Arabs against the Catholic faithful. Meanwhile the holy Bishop did not cease to take diligent care for the defence of the faith. Two Opuscula composed by John Damascene at his bidding still attest this. Both stand in volume 1 of the Works published under the name of St. John Damascene, which Le Quien brought to light in the year 1712, inserted from page 390 to page 429. The one contains a profession of faith, exceedingly opposed indeed to heretical depravity, which bishop Elias issued and handed to Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, who had been converted from heresy to the orthodox faith by the exertion, as it appears, of St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus; the other is a notable little book against the Jacobite heretics, sent in the name of Peter, most holy bishop of Damascus, to the Jacobite bishop of Tudara. Further, St. John Damascene undoubtedly expressed in those two Opuscula the sincere sentiments of St. Peter his metropolitan concerning the faith of Christ; and therefore, since these contain nothing that is not plainly orthodox, they most manifestly reveal not only his exceptional care for the Church's doctrine, but also the unstained faith by which he shone in the midst between two most filthy sects. But since to the highest purity of faith he joined an equal ardour in persecuting heresies, not bearing that the true faith of Christ should be pressed down and impious tenets hold the first place, he did not fear to refute openly the Mahometans as well as the Manichees. But when the matter was reported, either by the one or by the other, to the Mahometan prince or caliph of the Arabs, he ordered the tongue of the most holy Man to be cut out, and banished him, thus mutilated, into Arabia Felix.
[9] That prince of the Arabs, who is called by Theophanes Valid, above Ὀυαλὶδ, in the year 743, is Walid in Elmacin and Abulpharaj, to be cited below, and obtains still other formations of his name, as is set out among us in volume 3 of February, in Peter of Majuma, number 5; to which therefore, zealous reader, I refer you, hastening now to determine the year in which our Saint suffered. Theophanes, where in the words transcribed here at number 2 he narrated the banishment of St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, under the second year of Constantine Copronymus, presently refers to the same year the martyrdom of St. Peter of Majuma also. In whatever year of Christ, therefore, our Saint was banished into Arabia Felix, in that same year also, though a little later as it appears, Peter of Majuma met his glorious death for the faith. This our Bolland, in volume 3 of February already cited, in Peter of Majuma, sets together with the year of Christ 743; but Augustin Lubin in his ecclesiastical Tables added to the Roman Martyrology, page 330, and some other more recent writers, although they had Bolland shining before them, attach it to the year 742 of the Christian era. But Bolland rightly assigns the year 743 as the epoch of the martyrdom endured by Peter of Majuma; and that I may at last put this beyond controversy, and at the same time pave the way for defining the time at which our Saint passed to the Lord, I think it worth while now to show a little more laboriously that he was banished into Arabia Felix by Valid, prince of the Saracens or Arabs, in that very year 743.
[10] [as is proved from the beginning of the rule entered upon by Valid according to Elmacin,] Elmacin, an Arab writer who flourished at the end of the eleventh century and the beginning of the next, in his Saracenica, or history of the Saraceno-Arabs, taken, as he indicates in the Prologue, from more ancient writers, in book 1, chapter 18 records thus of Walid, who banished our Saint and was the second prince or caliph of the Arabs of this name: He was surnamed Abulabbas; and he was made caliph on the day on which his uncle Hisham died (for his father Yazid had so charged him, that he should succeed Hisham, namely), that is, on the sixth of the latter Rabia, of the year 125 of the Hegira. Hisham, then, or Isam, as Theophanes writes, the immediate predecessor of Walid II in the principate of the Arabs or Saracens, departed from among the living in the year 125 of the Hegira, on the sixth day of the latter Rabia, and on that very day Walid was first substituted for him in the caliphate. The Arabic or Hegira year 125 began on the 4th day of November of the year 742 of the Christian era, and ended on the 24th day of October of the following year. The sixth day, therefore, of the latter Rabia, which is the fourth month of the Arabic year, fell in the year 125 of the Hegira on the sixth day of our February, as will be clear to anyone who reckons it. Walid therefore did not begin to rule over the Arabs or Saracens before the year of Christ 743, advanced to the sixth day of February. This appears certain and undoubted; nor is there reason why Elmacin's reckoning should here be held suspect of error. That not a few nor slight chronological errors lurk in the Chronology of the patriarchs of Alexandria which Elmacin supplies, Sollier has clearly shown in more than one place in volume V of June, in the chronological History of those same patriarchs; but at the same time in this, at number 370, he frankly confesses that that writer is, in matters pertaining to his own nation, a chronographer accurate beyond most. Elmacin will bear the torch before us, he says, a most diligent investigator of Saracen affairs, and, in observing the reckoning of times in matters pertaining to his own nation, accurate beyond most.
[11] Wherefore, since we are speaking of the time at which a caliph of the Saracens began his principate, and are therefore engaged in a matter which certainly pertains to the Saracens or Arabs, Elmacin's nation, with whom Theophanes and Abulpharaj also agree, there is no reason why we should think him here not accurate in observing the due reckoning of times, or perhaps even hold him suspect of error in it. Besides, Elmacin — whom our Papebroch too, in the chronological History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem prefixed to volume III of May, number 152, commends for accuracy — has the support of Abulpharaj as well as of Theophanes. For the latter writes under the third year of Constantine Copronymus that Valid, having completed a single year of rule, was taken from among the living by a violent death through a faction of the Arabs on the 16th day of April; which he therefore reveals to have happened in the year of Christ 744 (for this is designated by the third year of Constantine Copronymus, marked by the month of April). But now, since a year, or twelve months, reckoned backwards from the 16th of April of the year 744, leads only to April of the year 743, it agrees excellently with Theophanes's reckoning that Valid or Walid did not begin to rule over the Arabs before the 6th day of February of the year 743; and therefore that holy chronographer supports Elmacin, who, as has been said, teaches that Walid did not begin to rule before this time. As for Abulpharaj, he in his History of the dynasties, page 136, hands down this to memory: He (Walid II, caliph of the Arabs) was killed two days before the end of the latter Jumada, in the year (of the Hegira, namely) one hundred and twenty-six. He held the caliphate a year and three months. The year 126 of the Hegira runs from the 25th of October of the year 743 to the 12th of October of the year 744, and the third day from the end of the latter Jumada — or, as others write it, Jomada, which is the sixth month of the Arabic year — falls on the sixteenth day of April of the year 744. Walid therefore, by Abulpharaj's reckoning too, met his last day on the 16th day of April in the year 744: and although that writer adds that Walid held the caliphate one year and three months, and this space of time, reckoned backwards, leads to a day earlier than the sixth of February of the year 743, yet he supports Elmacin in this, that by his reckoning too the beginning of the principate entered upon by Walid falls in the year 743.
[12] Besides, Abulpharaj may have taken, out of three months, the incomplete third — which lacked only seven or eight days of being complete — for a complete one; which, as is commonly known even to the learned, is not foreign to the practice of very many writers. And if Abulpharaj really did this, he was banished into Arabia: he agrees exactly with Elmacin, who in the place cited notes thus also of Walid: He ruled one year, two months and twenty-two days; which time, reckoned backwards from the 16th of April of the year 744, on which, according to Theophanes and Abulpharaj, Valid or Walid was killed, leads to the sixth day of February of the year 743, at which the aforesaid writer had already above set the beginning of the principate entered upon by Walid — to which, as I think, everyone will hold, for the reasons already given. Let it therefore now remain certain and fixed that Walid did not begin to rule over the Saracens before the sixth day of February of the year 743. But now, since St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus (for I now proceed to that for whose sake I have here laboriously defined the beginning of the principate entered upon by Walid), was driven into exile by Walid with his tongue cut out, this certainly did not happen before the sixth day of February of the year 743. And thus I have now defined the time after which our Saint was banished into Arabia Felix: now I likewise define that before which this also happened. Theophanes, under the 2nd year of Constantine Copronymus, sets the Saint's banishment together with the eleventh Indiction; wherefore, since this chronographer takes the beginning of years and of Indictions from the Kalends of September, and since the eleventh Indiction was running from the Kalends of September of the year 742 to the Kalends of September of the year 743, it follows that the Saint was banished before the Kalends of September of this latter year, and therefore, from what has been said, in that time which passed in the year 743 between the sixth of February and the first of September; when
you will also easily gather from what has been said above that the martyrdom of St. Peter of Majuma happened beyond all doubt.
[13] where also, as it appears, he ended his life in the same year, But did our Saint in that same year 743, and in the time that then passed between September and the sixth day of February, depart from among the living by a happy passing to the powers above? That the matter is so appears indeed from Theophanes. For (go to number 2) where that author wrote, ἐξώρισεν δὲ αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἐυδαίμονα Αραβίαν, he (Walid) banished him (saint Peter) into Arabia Felix, he presently subjoins: ἔνθα καὶ τελειοῦται, Where also (St. Peter, namely) is consummated by martyrdom; and the present-tense verb τελειοῦται, is consummated by martyrdom, here subjoined to the past-tense verb banished, seems to make a sense little apt. For who would think it aptly said: St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, was banished into Arabia Felix in the 2nd year of Constantine Copronymus, in the eleventh Indiction, where also he is consummated by martyrdom? Hence Theophanes seems to have subjoined to the past-tense verb banished the present-tense verb is consummated with that end and for that reason which removes from him the mark of an inept expression. He will have done it, namely, in order thereby to signify that our Saint, whom he teaches to have been banished into Arabia Felix in the second year of Constantine Copronymus, in the eleventh Indiction, was there also consummated by martyrdom in the same year and the same Indiction. For if that chronographer had written Ἔνθα καὶ ἐτελειώθη, Where also he was consummated by martyrdom, nothing at all, as it appears to me at least, would have hindered the Saint's death from being deferred beyond the second year of Constantine Copronymus and the eleventh Indiction; but since he wrote Ἔνθα καὶ τελειοῦται, Where also he is consummated by martyrdom, the Saint's death cannot be placed later than the second year of Constantine Copronymus and the eleventh Indiction. So I judge, because Theophanes is there treating of the things done in that year and Indiction, and because chronologers, when they treat of things done in some year, are wont to express in present-tense verbs only those things which happened in that very year, not those which happened in the following ones as well. And so our Saint consummated his martyrdom in the second year of Constantine Copronymus and the eleventh Indiction, as appears from Theophanes; and this therefore also happened in the year 743, between the sixth day of February and the Kalends of September, as it is easy to gather from what has been said above.
[14] although meanwhile as to the day. Hence further it now follows that the day of St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, is not the 4th of October, on which Baronius, Castellan and the others praised above hold him to be inscribed in today's Roman Martyrology. Nevertheless I think it came about partly from today's announcement of the Roman Martyrology, in which Peter, bishop and martyr, is announced, that Castellan too — who however had already at the 21st of February rightly joined the martyrdom of St. Peter of Majuma with the year 743 — wrongly attached our Saint's martyrdom to the year 742. For since on the one hand he saw that the Saint is inserted in the Roman Martyrology today, and on the other that his martyrdom is set by Theophanes together with the eleventh Indiction, he judged that it must be attached to the year 742, because according to Theophanes in this year, not in the next, the fourth day of October agrees with the eleventh Indiction. But now, someone will say, there seems indeed to be no room for doubting, on account of what has been said above, that the Saint did not have the fourth day of October of the year 742 as the day of his death; but since, as has been said, he consummated his martyrdom in that space of time which runs from the 6th day of February to the Kalends of September in the year 743, can a definite day within that space of time be assigned to it? St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, is inscribed at the 15th of February in Selden's later Coptic Calendar; and hence someone might perhaps think that the Saint of ours is spoken of in the praised Calendar, inasmuch as he too was metropolitan of Damascus. But in our Work at the aforesaid day of February the following is read among Those Passed Over: "Peter, metropolitan of Damascus," inscribed in Selden's later Coptic Calendar. Who he may be, we do not know. St. Peter of Majuma, or, as it is written in the Roman Martyrology, Mavimenus, was killed by the Arabs at Damascus on the 21st of February; and another St. Peter, bishop of Damascus (who is perhaps this one), on the 4th of October.
[15] Our Predecessors, then, as is clear from these words, doubted on which day this happened, whether Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, inscribed in Selden's later Coptic Calendar, was St. Peter, bishop of Damascus, announced today in the Roman Martyrology. Wherefore, since they likewise made the latter the same as Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, with whom we are here dealing, they at the same time called in doubt whether he and the Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, commemorated in Selden's Coptic Calendar are one and the same. And indeed, since a Peter, metropolitan, different from ours, a thoroughly Catholic man, governed the church of Damascus, as Le Quien teaches in his Oriens Christianus, volume 2, column 835, under the emperor Anastasius, perhaps no other Peter than this is announced as metropolitan of Damascus in Selden's Coptic Calendar; and therefore it may not undeservedly be questioned whether this one is not different from ours. But suppose that he is not different, not even so will it become certain that our Saint flew to the powers above by a happy passing from life on the 15th day of February; for just as the sacred Calendars of the Latins and Greeks do not always commemorate the Saints on the days on which they died, neither do the Coptic Calendars do so. A proof is that St. Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, who is inscribed in Selden's Coptic Calendar at the 15th of February, is likewise announced at the 21st of the same month in the Coptic Calendar of Job Ludolf; so that certainly, unless you should wish that in both places — contrary to what appears likely — different men are spoken of, he is celebrated in one of these two Calendars not on the day on which he died.
[16] as also about the manner of his death you may deservedly doubt. Nor is there reason for you to argue that the true day on which Peter, metropolitan of Damascus, or, as we have for the moment granted, our Saint, passed to the Lord, is certainly assigned in Selden's Calendar, on the ground that Peter of Majuma, who according to Theophanes seems to have died a little after our Saint, is inscribed in today's Roman Martyrology at the 21st day of February; for how, I ask, will you prove with sufficient certainty that St. Peter of Majuma underwent martyrdom on that day? All things therefore being weighed, on what day the Saint exchanged life for death appears uncertain. Nor do I hold it undoubted in what manner this was done. For although Theophanes seems at number 2 to indicate that the Saint ended his life by martyrdom, yet to signify the Saint's consummation or death he uses the verb τελειοῦσθαι, which sometimes means to be consummated not by martyrdom but only by death. Besides, he does not indicate even obscurely by any word the kind of punishment by which the Saint ended his life. The Roman Martyrology indeed, produced at number 1, enumerates the various punishments by which the Peter whom it commemorates consummated his martyrdom; but it has these only from the Menology of Sirleto and the other sacred Calendars of the Greeks praised above; wherefore, since these, as has been said, admit more than one error in his elogium — if Peter of Capitolias is one and the same with our Saint, as perhaps he really is — there is certainly reason to question whether our Saint passed to the Lord after suffering those punishments which the Roman Martyrology enumerates. But however that may be, I have nevertheless rendered the Greek present-tense verb τελειοῦται by the Latin is consummated by martyrdom, and have called the Saint a martyr; and I have done this because, although it is not altogether certain by what kind of martyrdom — nay, even whether by martyrdom at all — the Saint ended his life in Arabia, I yet judge it probable from Theophanes that it really happened by martyrdom and by fresh punishments, which perhaps were not different from the punishments which the Roman Martyrology and the often praised Calendars of the Greeks recount.