ists, AA. SS Jan. ii. 342–349. A curious story told by Gregory (l.c.) shews how his Acts originated. Patroclus had a chapel in Gaul served by a solitary priest. The populace despised this chapel because it possessed no Acts of his passion, and a traveller came to the priest one day and shewed him a book which proved to be the Acts of his own saint. The priest sat up all night copying them, and then returned the book to the traveller, who went his way. The priest at once shewed his bishop the Acts. The prelate was suspicious, taxed him with forgery, and, according to the stern discipline of the Gallic church, flogged him on the spot. An army, however, shortly afterwards invaded Italy, and brought back an identical copy of the Acts, thus proving the good faith of the priest. The people thereupon built a splendid church in honour of Patroclus.
[G.T.S.]
Patroclus (3), bp. of Arles, between SS. Heros and Honoratus (a.d. 412–426). In 412 the people of Arles drove out Heros and elected Patroclus, a creature of Constantius (Prosper Aquit. Chronicon, Migne, Patr. Lat. li. 590). As bishop he is said to have sold ecclesiastical offices (Prosper Tyro, Chronicon, in Bouquet i. 638) and hoarded up stores of ill-gotten wealth (cf. the funeral sermon of Hilary of Arles upon St. Honoratus, c. vi. Patr. Lat. l. 1265). He seems, however, to have commended himself to pope Zosimus, who conferred upon him unprecedented privileges of jurisdiction, and his history illustrates the relations of the French dioceses. On the ground that Arles was the fountain-head of Gallic Christianity, the pope confirmed to the see all parishes it had ever held, whether within the province or not, and gave Patroclus exclusive rights of ordination over the independent provinces of Vienne, Narbonensis Prima, and Narbonensis Secunda, and deposed Proculus, bp. of Marseilles, for infringing these privileges by ordaining in his own diocese. On the ground of Patroclus's personal merits, the pope, in a letter addressed to all the Gallic bishops, forbade any cleric of whatever rank to visit Rome without first obtaining literae formatae, or letters of identification and recommendation, from the bp. of Arles. See the pope's correspondence from Mar. 22, 417, to Feb. 5, 418, which is chiefly occupied with Arles, Epp. i. v. vi. vii. x. xi. Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 643, 665, 666, 668, 673, 674. These privileges were productive of great dissatisfaction in the neighbouring provinces and, in the matter of the jurisdiction, Zosimus's orders were virtually rescinded by his successor, Bonifacius I., who, in a letter written Feb. 9, 422, asserted the right of Hilary, bp. of Narbonne, to consecrate the bp. of Lodève in his province, as against Patroclus, who had usurped it (Ep. iii. Patr. Lat. xx. 772–774). In 425 Patroclus was ordered by Theodosius to assemble for discussion the Gallic bishops who professed the Pelagian and Celestian heresies, the emperor decreeing exile for such as should not recant within 20 days. Patroclus was murdered in 426 by a barbarian officer (Chronicon, Patr. Lat. li. 593–594).
[S.A.B.]
Patrophilus (1) of Scythopolis, one of the original Arian party, took a leading part in all their principal acts and was one of the most relentless opponents of Athanasius, by whom he is designated as a πνευματόμαχος (adv. Serap. iv. 7, p. 360). He enjoyed considerable reputation for theological learning, and trained Eusebius of Emesa in the exposition of Scripture (Socr. H. E. ii. 9). When Arius, driven from Alexandria, took refuge in Palestine, Patrophilus was one of the Palestinian bishops who warmly espoused his cause, wrote in support of his teaching (Athan. de Synod. p. 886), and in a.d. 323 joined with Paulinus of Tyre and Eusebius of Caesarea in summoning a local synod, which granted Arius permission to hold private religious assemblies (Soz. H. E. i. 15). At Nicaea he was one of the 17 episcopal partisans of Arius, and united with them in drawing up a creed which was indignantly rejected by the council (Theod. H. E. i. 7) Embittered by defeat, he became one of the most relentless persecutors of Athanasius. In 330 he took part in the synod at Antioch by which Eustathius was deposed (ib. i. 21). At the synod of Tyre (a.d. 335) he was one of the most active in bringing about the condemnation of Athanasius (Labbe, ii. 436; Athan. Apol. c. Arian. cc. 73, 74, 77), and the same year he attended the abortive synod of the Dedication at Jerusalem (Socr. H. E. i. 31; Soz. H. E. ii. 26; Theod. H. E. i. 31). Passing thence to Constantinople at the empress's command, he denounced Athanasius as having threatened the imperial city with starvation by preventing the sailing of the Alexandrian corn-ships, and procured his banishment to Trèves (Socr. H. E. i. 35; Theod. H. E. i. 31; Theophan. p. 26; Athan. Apol. c. Asian. c. 87). In 341 be took part in the ambiguous council of Antioch, in Encaeniis (Soz. H. E. iii. 5). He was one of the ordainers of George, the violent heterodox intruder into the see of Alexandria in 353 (ib. iv. 8), and with his leader Acacius kept entirely aloof from Athanasius when Maximus of Jerusalem welcomed him on his return from banishment in 346, and before long contrived to establish Cyril in Maximus's place as their own nominee (Theophan. p. 34; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 145). He was one of the few Eastern bishops who attended the council of Milan in 355 (his name appearing erroneously in the lists as Stratophilus), and he took part in the condemnation and deposition of Eusebius of Vercelli, on whose banishment to Scythopolis, Patrophilus, "his jailer," as Eusebius calls him, vented his annoyance by studied insults and ill-treatment (Eus. Vercell. Ep. apud Baronium Annal. 356, No. 93). According to Philostorgius (H. E. iv. 8–10) Patrophilus poisoned the mind of Constantius against Basil of Ancyra, who had at one time exercised unbounded influence over him, and was the proposer of the scheme of breaking up the proposed general council into two. When the Eastern division met at Seleucia, Sept. 27, 359, Patrophilus was a leading member of the shifty Acacian party pledged to the Homoiousion. Finding the majority of the synod against them, he and his party refused to take part in the later sessions, and at the fourth sitting, Oct. 1, he shared in the sentence of deposition passed on Acacius and his followers (Socr. H. E. ii. 40; Soz. H. E.
