² Eusebius of Vercelli, Ad presbyteros et plebem Italia 2.3.2 (hereafter cited as ep. 2) (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 9:104–9 [hereafter cited as CCL]). Eusebius remarks that it is licit to “hand over” (tradere) one's body in times of persecution, perhaps contrasting himself with those who earned the Donatists' scorn (the traditores). Eusebius may signal that he has committed traditio, though impeccably. On the Donatists and the import of traditio, see Frend, W. H. C., The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 8–20, 316–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Simultaneously, Eusebius may have in mind Matt. 24:9: Tunc tradent vos in tribulationem, in the Latina, Vetus (Itala 1 Matthäus-Evangelium, ed. Jülicher, Adolf [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1938]: 173)Google Scholar.

³ On the rhetoric of martyrdom after the age of persecution, see also Gaddis, Michael, There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 68–130, esp. 69, 103–5Google Scholar.

⁴ Jerome, De viris illustribus 96 (Gli uomini illustri, Biblioteca Patristica 12, ed. Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo [Firenze: Nardini Editore, 1988]:200); Rusch, William, The Later Latin Fathers (London: Duckworth, 1977), 20Google Scholar.

⁵ Athanasius, Apologia ad Constantium imperatorem 27 (Sources chrétiennes 56:118–19 [hereafter cited as SC]); Sulpicius Severus, Chronicorum libri duo 2.39 (SC 441:312–14); Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiatica (Church History) 10.21 (hereafter cited as HE) (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte, Neue Folge 6.2:987–88 [hereafter cited as GCS, NF for Neue Folge]); Socrates, HE 2.36.1–5 (GCS NF 1:151–52); Sozomen, HE 4.9.1–5 (GCS NF 4:148–49). Barnes, Timothy, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), 117Google Scholar, estimates the month of the council as July or August.

⁶ Hilary, Liber I ad Constantium 8 (Corpus Christianorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 65:186–87, [hereafter cited as CSEL]). Brennecke, Hanns Christof, Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposition gegen Konstantius II: Untersuchungen zur dritten Phase des Arianischen Streites (337–361) (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984), 180–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, rejects the historicity of this incident on the logic that the Nicene Creed was unknown in the Latin west at this time and that the silence of Lucifer of Cagliari about the matter suggests that Hilary retrojected his post-Sirmium vision into the account. Other scholars, however, have adduced a myriad of reasons to refute this thesis (many of which still harbor skepticism about Hilary's trustworthiness and Eusebius's heroism). Hanson, R. P. C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 461n7Google Scholar, points out that the council's theological character is revealed by its preliminary condemnation of Marcellus and Photinus. Barnes, Athanasius, 117, argues that Athanasius's allies would have been likely to switch the debate from personal innocence to theological rectitude. McLynn, Neil, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 17n62Google Scholar, states that Brennecke's argument proves “only the oddity of Eusebius's gesture and its failure to ignite an immediate response.” Smulders, P., Hilary of Poitiers' Preface to his Opus Historicum: Translation and Commentary (New York: E. J. Brill, 1995), 153–54Google Scholar, contends that Hilary did not have the luxury of misrepresentation because he needed to convince those who either did not care about or did not approve of his cause. Simonetti, Manlio, “Eusebio nella controversia ariana” in Eusebio di Vercelli e il suo tempo, ed. dal Covolo, Enrico, Uglione, Renato, and Vian, Giovanni Maria, 177–79 (Rome: LAS, 1997)Google Scholar, argues that Lucifer's silence speaks more to his megalomania than to historical fact.

⁷ Sulpicius Severus, Chronicorum libri duo 2.39.2 (SC 441:314) and Jerome, Chronicon 239i (GCS 47:239–40) indicate that Constantius himself was involved and likely pronounced judgment. His consistory may have provided some decision-making assistance, but the verdict came from the emperor. If any official proclamation existed, it does not survive.

⁸ For a concise statement on Scythopolis and bibliography, see Bowersock, G. W., Brown, Peter, and Grabar, Oleg, Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999)Google Scholar, s.v. “Scythopolis.” For more detailed accounts, see Binns, John, Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ: The Monasteries of Palestine 314–631 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 121–47Google Scholar; Stemberger, Günter, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth Century, trans. Tuschling, Ruth (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 6–9, 18, 71–75, 139–40Google Scholar; Belayche, Nicole, Iudaea-Palaestina: The Pagan Cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth Century) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 258–68Google Scholar.

⁹ Binns, Ascetics, 126–27.

¹⁰ Ibid., 123. Diocletian's price edict 26.13a–130, 27.8–29a, 28.7–37a (Diokeletians Preisedikt, ed. Siegfried Lauffer [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.: 1971], 169–79) assesses Scythopolis's linen as of the highest quality.

¹¹ Binns, Ascetics, 128. Stemberger, Jews, 9.

¹² Ammianus Marcellinus, 19.12.8 (Loeb Classical Library 300:536). Jones, A. H. M. and others, eds., The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971–80): 683–84Google Scholar: “Paulus ‘Catena’ 4.”

¹³ Jewish and Roman traces lag behind the Hellenic elements. Binns, Ascetics, 135–36, observes that Jews, who were victims of violence in the first century, slowly ebbed back into the city in the following decades. Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina, 260–62, notes that a statue of Hadrian and a Roman festival, the Saturnalia, mentioned in the Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 1.2.3) represent the only two traces of Romanization.

¹⁴ On the temple of Zeus Akraios, see Binns, Ascetics, 131 and Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina, 262; on the Dionysus inscription, Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina, 264.

¹⁵ Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina, 258; Binns, Ascetics, 140.

¹⁶ Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine 1.1. This text comes down to us in two recensions, a short and a long version. English translation of both in Lawlor, Hugh and Oulton, John, trans., The Ecclesiastical history and the Martyrs of Palestine, vol. 2 (London: S. P. C. K., 1928)Google Scholar. Only the long version, which survives complete solely in Syriac, mentions Scythopolis. The Greek fragments of the long version (which do not include 1.1) are printed in parallel with their short-version counterparts in SC 55:120–74 and GCS N.F 6.2:907–56.

¹⁷ Binns, Ascetics, 140.

¹⁸ Ibid., 132, regards Patrophilus as the dawn of a second stage for Christianity in Scythopolis, one during which the religion slowly increased.

¹⁹ Early in the controversy, Alexander of Alexandria wrote to Alexander of Constantinople and excoriated Arius's views. Alexander indicates that three bishops of Syria had embraced Arius's position: Theodoret, HE 1.4.37 (GCS 19:18). Hanson, Search, 17, indentifies Patrophilus as one of these three bishops.

²⁰ Sozomen, HE 1.15.10–12 (GCS NF 4:34–35).

²¹ Theodoret, HE 1.7.13–14 (GCS 19:32–33). See Hanson, Search, 156–157. As the other histories that describe the council, Rufinus, HE 10.5 (GCS NF 6.2:965), Socrates, HE 1.8.31–34 (GCS NF 1:22–23), and Sozomen, HE 1.20.1 (GCS 4:41), mention the reluctant bishops but do not name Patrophilus, it is possible that Theodoret added him to the list based on his reputation.

²² Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 87.1–3 (Opitz, H. G., Athanasius Werke. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1940, 2.1:165–66Google Scholar [hereafter cited as Opitz]); Socrates, HE 1.35.1–3 (GCS NF 1:85). See Barnes, Athanasius, 23–25.

²³ See Smulders, Hilary, 94, 109–112; Barnes, Athanasius, 117.

²⁴ Concerning Patrophilus's learned reputation, the fifth-century historian Socrates, HE 2.9.3 (GCS NF 1:98), indicates that he instructed Eusebius of Emisa.

²⁵ Epiphanius, Panarion 30.5.6 (GCS 25:340). The opening line of this work states its date. Philostorgius, 4.10 (GCS 21:63), bears out this privileged relationship. He describes a reversal of fortune activated by Patrophilus in which the bishop reported to Constantius the deeds of Basil of Ancyra, thereby earning exile for Basil and pardon for those that Basil had banished.

²⁶ On parrhésia, see Brown, Peter, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1992), esp. 61–70, 116–17Google Scholar.

²⁷ Chronicon Paschale 362 (Patrologica Graeca 92:740).

²⁸ Williams, Daniel, Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Ibid., 50, notes the lack of attention which Eusebius has received. Hanson, Search, 508, does the best one can with Eusebius's theological scraps.

³⁰ Williams Ambrose, 60, writes that “the cruel treatment which Eusebius reports that he received, reveals how ugly were the lengths to which Christian enmity in the fourth century was prepared to go.” Goemans, Monald, “L'exil du Pape Libère,” in Mélanges offerts à Mademoiselle Christine Mohrmann, 184 (Utrecht: Spectrum, 1963)Google Scholar, argues that while the details of Liberius of Rome's banishment may be unknown, “we are able, however, to get an idea of the circumstances of his exile through the information that the exiles in other regions give us, and these testimonies show that their lot was far from enviable.”

³¹ The bibliography used in this article is representative, not exhaustive. For a staggeringly full bibliography (extending from 1581 to 1997) on Eusebius, see Mario Maritano, “Biobliografia eusebiana,” in Eusebio di Vercelli (see note 6), 432–71. A notable exception to these trends is Wace, Henry and Piercy, William C., eds., A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century a.d., With an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999Google Scholar; repr. of A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, London: John Murray, 1911), s.v. “Eusebius, bp. of Vercellae,”: “He was a troublesome prisoner, having twice all but starved himself to death because he would not accept provisions from Arian hands.”

³² Dattrino, Lorenzo, “La lettera di Eusebio al clero ed al popolo della sua diocesi,” Lateranum 45 (1979), 60–82Google Scholar. See also Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiatiques, s.v. “Eusèbe de Verceil,” in which V. C. De Clercq states that Eusebius's letter presents his “humiliations, insults, and hardships.” Similarly, Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, s.v. “Eusèbe de Verceil” (hereafter cited as DThC).

³³ Gilles Pelland, “Eusebio e Ilario di Poitiers,” in Eusebio di Vercelli (see note 6), 247.

³⁴ Goemans, “L'exil,” 188.

³⁵ DThC, s.v. “Eusèbe de Verceil.”

³⁶ Quasten, Johannes, Patrology, trans. Solari, Placid (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1992) 4:63Google Scholar.

³⁷ Dattrino, “Lettera,” 63.

³⁸ Goemans, “L'exil,” 188.

³⁹ Williams, Ambrose, 61.

⁴⁰ For example, Simonetti, “Eusebio,” 160.

⁴¹ Epiphanius, Panarion 30.5.1–5 (GCS 25:339–40).

⁴² Ibid., 30.5.6 (GCS 25:340).

⁴³ Ep. 2.3.1–2 (CCL 9:105).

⁴⁴ Eusebius's contemporary Athanasius imagines the devil as the head of the Arian heresy: Lyman, Rebecca, “A Topography of Heresy: Mapping the Rhetorical Creation of Arianism” in Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts, ed. Barnes, Michel and Williams, Daniel, 45–62, esp. 54 (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd, 1993)Google Scholar. Eusebius, too, constructs an Arian straw man, but he dispenses with the apparatus of succession, such that the devil is imminent in the affairs of the Arians.

⁴⁵ Ep. 2.6.2 (CCL 9:107).

⁴⁶ His remark that the Arians “had not maintained this enterprise” is misleading; surely the Arians would not have continued his operation. The wealth and charitable enterprises of Patrophilus's church are impossible to determine. Although Patrophilus was famous for his personal wealth, the church itself may not have possessed the resources to conduct its own ventures. The Arians did eventually commandeer Eusebius's funds (6.3). On the theoretical distinction of but possible overlap between a bishop's private wealth and his church's communal holdings, see Rapp, Claudia, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 211–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Rapp, Bishops, 224.

⁴⁸ Brown, Peter, “Response,” in The Role of the Christian Bishop in Ancient Society, eds. Chadwick, Henry, Hobbs, Edward, and Wuellner, Wilhelm, 21 (Berkeley, Calif.: The Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1980)Google Scholar; Brown, Power, 91; Brown, , Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 2002), 79Google Scholar. We may also doubt whether the exchange of food for loyalty was a maneuver unique to late antique bishops. Whether this technique was a reimagining of society or a crude exercise in marshalling support, it had the unmistakable effect of developing throngs of followers behind the bishops who implemented it.

⁴⁹ So assumed by Hanson, Search, 334, and Barnes, Athanasius, 117. Barnes attributes this notion to Sulpicius Severus (who does not mention deposition), but the conclusion appears justified. Hilary, Liber I ad Constantium 2.8.3 (CSEL 65:187), trans. Wickham, Lionel, Hilary of Poitiers: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-Century Church (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997), 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, leaves off at a tantalizing point: “The [bishops'] decision speaks for itself as to the kind of decision [sententia] they wrote at length against Eusebius, before they entered the church.” A sententia arrived at by bishops against another bishop was very likely a deposition.

⁵⁰ The sources register the collusion of religious and temporal authority at the Council of Milan in various ways. Sulpicius Severus, Chronicorum libri duo 2.39.1 (SC 441:312) indicates that the bishops manipulated the emperor. Conversely, Athanasius, Historia Arianorum, 33.7 (Opitz 2.1:201–2) has Constantius bending canon law to his whims. Theodoret, HE 2.15.1–2 (GCS 19:128) combines the two motifs, such that in his version Constantius first yields to others and then interferes with ecclesiastical affairs. The critical point is that the council took place at the emperor's behest and at a locale where he himself was: the entire affair aspired to a unanimous front by all parties, imperial and ecclesiastic.

⁵¹ Hilary, Liber I ad Constantium 2.8.3 (CSEL 65:187).

⁵² Ep. 2.2.6 (CCL 9:105). Eusebius here seems to have in mind the local poor (pauperes … ciuitatis ipsius homines) and non-indigenous observers, likely his visitors from other provinces.

⁵³ Ibid., 6.4 (CCL 9:107–8).

⁵⁴ Ibid., 4.1, 7.3 (CCL 9:106, 108).

⁵⁵ See Blaise, Albert, Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens (Turnhout: Éditions Brepols, 1954)Google Scholar, s.v. “hospitium”; Lewis, Charlton and Short, Charles, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1879; often repr.)Google Scholar, s.v. “hospitium.” Casson, Lionel, Travel in the Ancient World (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1974), 204Google Scholar, describes a hospitium as “a workaday no-nonsense place for housing the rank-and-file traveller overnight”; see also Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire 284–602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1964), 2:831Google Scholar; Leyerle, Blake, “Communication and Travel,” in The Early Christian World, ed. Esler, Philip, 1:452–74, esp. 463–64 (New York: Routledge, 2000)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ On prisons in the Roman period, see Krause, Jens-Uwe, Gefängnisse im Römischen Reich (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1996)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Ep. 2.6.4 (CCL 9:107–8).

⁵⁸ For example, Di Maio, Michael and Cunningham, Agnes, trans., Cunningham, Agnes, ed., The Early Church and the State, Sources of Early Christian Thought 4 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 66Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, s.v. “nudo.”

⁶⁰ Ep. 2.2.4, 9.2 (CCL 9:105, 109).

⁶¹ In his final letter from exile, Bishop Liberius complains that “Venerius the agens in rebus has taken away from me my dearest son, the deacon Urbicus, whom I seemed to have as a consolation.” Letter in Hilary, Fragmenta historica B VII.11.1 (CSEL 65:173). Rufinus of Aquileia, HE 11.4 (GCS NF 6.2:1007), trans. Amidon, Philip, The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 66Google Scholar, writes that Lucius, bishop of Alexandria, had some desert fathers seized and taken to an island amidst an Egyptian marsh: “The elders were thus taken by night, with only two attendants, to the island, on which there was a temple greatly revered by the inhabitants of the place.” Diercks, G. F., introduction to Luciferi Calaritani Opera Quae Supersunt, CCL 8 (Turnholti: Brepols, 1978)Google Scholar, xvii–xviii, suspects that one or two deacons and certainly some scribes would have convoyed Lucifer of Cagliari into exile.

⁶² Ep. 2.11.2 (CCL 9:109).

⁶³ Ibid., 6.3 (CCL 9:107). His mention in 7.3 of the deuoti fratres, “devoted brothers,” kept from his hospitium (stage 9) most likely signifies another reference to these foreign Christians.

⁶⁴ Sulpicius Severus, Chronicorum libri duo 2.39.5 (SC 441:316), trans. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series 11:116.

⁶⁵ For example, 6.1 (CCL 9:107) cites the placement of lanterns around his inn as a sign of popular welcome; (see appendix, stage 7).

⁶⁶ Ibid., 8.1 (CCL 9:108).

⁶⁷ Ibid., 5.2 (CCL 9:107).

⁶⁸ Ibid., 9.1 (CCL 9:109).

⁶⁹ Ibid., 10.1 (CCL 9:109).

⁷⁰ Two questions surround the timing of Epiphanius's conversation with Joseph: first, whether it took place during Eusebius's time in Scythopolis or after it; second, if it was contemporaneous with Eusebius's stay, then when it took place relative to the events of ep. 2. In regard to the first issue, nearly all scholars place the event in the late 350s or early 360s, that is, during Eusebius's stay in Scythopolis. One exception is Simonetti, “Eusebio,” 160, who for unstated reasons puts the encounter years after Eusebius's exile. Goranson, Stephen, “The Joseph of Tiberius Episode in Epiphanius: Studies in Jewish and Christian Relations,” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1990), 70–72Google Scholar, reviews earlier estimates and places the event between 355 and 360, probably in the earlier portion of that range. Goranson's, later chapter, “Joseph of Tiberias Revisited: Orthodoxies and Heresies in Fourth-Century Galilee,” in Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, ed. Meyers, Eric, 335–343 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999)Google Scholar, mistakenly cites the date as 353, perhaps as a misprint for 358. Thornton, T. C. G., “The Stories of Joseph of Tiberias,” Vigiliae Christianae 44, no. 1 (March 1990): 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Sivan, Hagith, Palestine in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar, put the event during Eusebius's sojourn and around 360 respectively. Concerning the second question, because Eusebius does not mention that his landlord was a Nicene count of Jewish extraction, it seems unlikely that Joseph owned any of the hospitia known to us from the letter. Likewise, if Epiphanius had appeared before the writing of ep. 2, his persona would seem to have merited some special mention in Eusebius's letter. Thus Epiphanius's visit most likely fell after Eusebius wrote ep. 2.

⁷¹ Epiphanius, Panarion 30.5.2 (GCS 25:339–40): ἐν γὰρ τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ ὁ μακαρίτης Eὐσέβιος … ὡς ἐξωρίσθη ὑπὸ Kωνσταντίου διὰ τὴν πίστιν τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας, ἐξϵνίζϵτο καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐπίοκϵΨιν τούτου ἐγώ τϵ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἀδϵλφοὶ ἐκϵῖσϵ γϵνόμϵνοι καὶ αὐτοὶ παρ' αὐτῷ κατήχθημϵν. The force of the passage is that Eusebius was lodged with Joseph; Epiphanius came to see Eusebius and thereby met Joseph, from whom he learned tales and lore.

⁷² Ibid., 30.5.5 (GCS 25:340) also mentions that Joseph was visited by another local Nicene Christian who did not dare reveal himself as such.

⁷³ Jacobs, Andrew, Remains of the Jews: The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2004), 51Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Socrates, HE 7.15 (GCS NF 1:360–61). See Watts, Edward, “The Murder of Hypatia: Acceptable of Unacceptable Violence?” in Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices, ed. Drake, H. A., 333–42 (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006)Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Ep. 2.3.1 (CCL 9:105).

⁷⁶ See Rebecca Lyman, “Topography,” 45–46; Lyman, , “Arius and Arians” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, ed. Harvey, Susan Ashbrook and Hunter, David, 237–57 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar. See also Gwynn, David, The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the “Arian Controversy” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar, who argues that those whom Athanasius represents as a unified bloc committed to the principles of Arianism were neither unified nor Arian.

⁷⁷ The extent to which bishops resembled other authority figures within the Roman bureaucracy is a large and difficult question. In the most extensive modern study of the bishop, Claudia Rapp, Bishops, 274–89, emphasizes that, while bishops took on many of the chores traditional to the city councils and administrators, the episcopacy was not identical to or subsumed into the imperial bureaucracy.

⁷⁸ Banishing Nicene bishops to areas presided over by non-Nicenes seems to be part of a larger pattern under Constantius. Liberius of Rome was exiled to Beroea where the non-Nicene bishop Demophilus presided: Hilary, Fragmenta historica B VII.7 (CSEL 65:169). On Demophilus's theology, see Hanson, Search, 101, 565n35, 791–92, 804–5.

⁷⁹ Ep. 2.7.1–2 (CCL 9:108).

⁸⁰ I borrow this phrase from Perkins, Judith, The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era (London: Routledge, 1995), 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who examines the “extensive formulation in the culture of the second century that represented the human self as a body in pain, a sufferer.”

⁸¹ See also Castelli, Elizabeth, Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 34Google Scholar, who sees martyrdom less as a clash of gods than as a “conflict over order and narrative.”

⁸² An irony (that a bishop could become a persecutor of the church) which Eusebius is alert to: ep. 2.7.2 (CCL 9:108).

⁸³ Barnes, Athanasius, 132, 174, notes that Athanasius applied a double standard to imperial intervention, lauding government action supporting his position but condemning as improper action against it. He also observes that Athanasius, Hilary, and Lucifer paint Constantius as a tyrant unfit to rule the empire. Humphries, Mark, “Savage Humour: Christian Anti-panegyric in Hilary of Poitier's Against Constantius” in The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. Whitby, Mary, 201–21 (Leiden: Brill, 1998)Google Scholar, shows that Hilary's Contra Constantium Imperatorem (=In Constantium) represents an attempt to undermine Constantius's legitimacy by mocking his adventus (a ceremony enacted by a ruler entering a city) and reinventing his lineage. Lucifer resorted to character assassination; samples adduced by Diercks, Introduction to CCL 8: xiv–xv.

⁸⁴ Ep. 2.1.1 (CCL 9:104).

⁸⁵ Sozomen, HE 4.9.4 (GCS 4:148) emphasizes the speed with which the exiles were conducted from Milan. See also Socrates, HE 2.37.1 (GCS NF 1:152). Eusebius probably took the land route, which would have been cheaper. On land, the Bordeaux pilgrim traveled for 170 days from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, a journey quite similar to Eusebius's (Casson, Travel, 315). If the council did take place in July and August and if Eusebius made similar progress, then he would have arrived in January or February of 356.

⁸⁶ The agentes appear only at this stage in the drama. If Eusebius did arrive in Scythopolis first, then perhaps the agentes accompanied Patrophilus, bearing some notice from the emperor on the manner in which the exiled bishop was to be accommodated. The agentes in rebus were an organization that conducted messages and performed some internal surveillance functions, see Jones, Empire, 1:572–82; Sinnigen, William, “The Roman Secret Service,” The Classical Journal 57, no. 2 (November 1961): 65–72Google Scholar. This group was involved in the exilic affairs of Eusebius's contemporary Liberius of Rome; (see note 61).

⁸⁷ Eusebius, ep. 2.1.1–2 (CCL 9:104) refers to “the arrival and visits of many brothers [plurimorum fratrum]” and “brothers [fratrum] who came to us from diverse provinces.” We cannot be certain whether the fratres are identical. About the former, he tells the Vercellians that these visitations “demonstrated your presence,” implying that they were either members of Eusebius's church or non-Vercellians bearing news of Eusebius's home. Later in the saga (6.3 [CCL 9:107], (see appendix, stage 9), Eusebius mentions “other brothers [alios fratres], those who had come to visit us,” who may be the same as the fratres introduced here. If so, then many of the visitors remained in Scythopolis for a substantial amount of time.

⁸⁸ This crucial passage is absent from the only English translation of Eusebius's letter, Di Maio and Cunningham, The Early Church and the State.

⁸⁹ At two points (3.3 and 6.1 [CCL 9:105, 107]), Eusebius alludes to a four-day span of time in which his keepers allowed no visitors. These references seem to point to the same period.

⁹⁰ Eusebius writes as though all his clergy were banished, but his closing benediction (11.2 [CCL 9:109]) admits the presence of some.