The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity by George E. Demacopoulos (review)

In this book Demacopoulos provides not simply another history of the papacy in late antiquity, but “a study of how the literary and ritualistic embellishment of a link between the historic Peter and the papal see of subsequent centuries functioned within a series of existence and interconnected late ancient discourses of authority and exclusion” (1–2). Using discourse analysis, he focuses on cases in which Roman bishops claim a connection specifically to Peter and at cases in which they choose not to do so (sometimes quite tellingly). Demacopoulos’s overarching thesis is that the use of such discourse is most prevalent when a bishop’s authority is most threatened. Strong Petrine claims, therefore, reflect the weakness and/or vulnerability of the Roman bishop at that moment, not his strength.

Chapter One provides an overview of the early literary records concerning Peter in Rome and the growth of the cult. Those familiar with the evidence will not necessarily find anything new here, but this is helpful orientation for the nonspecialist. Demacopoulos resists a teleological reading of the sources and highlights elements that do not fit with later papal tradition. For example, there is no clear claim of Peter’s presence in Rome until the late second century, and the earliest references to Peter in the city (in the Acts of Peter and Martyrdom of Peter) make no reference to the apostle as Rome’s bishop. Also, in the Pseudo- Clementine literature James, not Peter, is identified as the “bishop of bishops” and “head of the bishops” (23).

Chapter Two analyzes the use of this Petrine rhetoric by Leo I. Demacopoulos argues that this rhetoric appears most frequently early in Leo’s term as bishop, when he was still trying to establish his position, and in contexts in which he was speaking in the presence of other bishops. One of Leo’s primary challenges was upholding the precedent established by the Council of Serdica concerning the jurisdictional authority of the Roman bishop. Leo was much more aggressive in reasserting that authority to the western bishops than to the eastern bishops, which Demacopoulos attributes to the fact that Leo saw little chance of success in convincing the eastern bishops. With the western bishops Leo employed the “Petrine subject” (55), a term Demacopoulos uses to describe Leo’s use of “Peter” in the place of his own name as a means of granting his opinion more weight. The councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were humiliations for Leo, and the declaration at Chalcedon that “Peter has spoken through Leo” (70) was not a recognition of Leo’s authority, but a rhetorical attempt by the eastern bishops to claim apostolic support for their own conclusions.

Gelasius and the epistle To Anastasius are the focus of Chapter Three. Demacopoulos reads the letter as an attempt by the bishop to solidify his influence at home by claiming an international reputation. Gelasius’s vulnerability had been shown by his inability to suppress the Lupercalia and the fallout after the rehabilitation of Misenus, so in this letter he tries to convince his Roman detractors of his importance abroad. Demacopoulos highlights the irony that while Gelasius’s rhetoric was used in later centuries to promote papal authority very strongly, it originated in a period in which the bishop was very weak.

Chapter Four is of a different type, for it focuses not on a particular bishop but on a collection of sixth-century texts and their impact (or lack thereof) on the policies of Theodoric in Italy and Justinian in Constantinople. Demacopoulos sees the bishops of this period as minor figures of little influence, and the production of papal biographies (e.g., the Liber Pontificalis) was part of a strategy to reassert the Roman bishop’s importance.

Chapter Five deals with Gregory I. Demacopoulos sees continuity with previous bishops in that Gregory uses the strongest Petrine rhetoric in periods of...