speaking of the Monk tortured to death as "this insolent ruffian." The "effect" of all this is further improved by saying, that "the Alexandrians," with whom "the character of Orestes stood high,"-" rose in defence of their magistrate:" namely, that great population, including a respectable quota of the army, "rose" against that "pour" of "five hundred Monks," who "took arms"-or rather, "took heels," for they ran for dear life as soon as the skirmish began,-and picked up a stone, which Ammonius threw. Such remarkable devotion, on the part of "the people," wonderfully brightens the character of Orestes, and proportionally blackens that of the "insolent ruffian" and the haughty Prelate.

But there is a little matter which seems, so to speak, to sully the immaculacy of the blackness of Cyril's character: we refer to the shame, regret, or appearance of relenting, which he exhibited on two or three occasions. Thus, he evidently repented of his haste in conferring on Ammonius the honors of martyrdom. How shall we manage that? Ebony does not blush. If we admit the possibility of shame or regret, in a haughty and unscrupulous Prelate, we might be forced to allow the possibility of amendment of life. A slight touch of the brush will remove the difficulty: "Cyril was, for once, ashamed, and glad to bury the affair in oblivion." In the same way, the Bishop (it appears) made sundry efforts to appease Orestes, and on one occasion went to meet him, holding out the Gospels, as a sign of his pacific intentions: that transaction, in which the conduct of Orestes looks a little ungracious, can be best blotted out with a Gibbonish sneer: 66 He went forth to meet Orestes with the Gospel in his hand: the Prefect" (pious man!) "probably supposing that he had not much of its spirit in his heart, refused his advances." So, once more, Cyril at first, from a natural sympathy with Theophilus, his uncle and predecessor, believed the charges which that Prelate had brought against St. John Chrysostom, and on the strength of which the latter had been deposed; afterwards he was induced, by the remonstrances and persuasions of several of the Bishops, to change his mind and to do justice to the memory of the Saint: we will deprive him of any benefit from this instance of relenting, by phrasing it, "The general

voice of Christendom alone compelled him to desist from this posthumous persecution."

We cannot help wishing, by the way,--we speak now as reviewers, not as philosophic artists,-that "the general voice of Christendom" were as potent now, as it was then, against "posthumous persecution." If it were, St. Chrysostom is by no means the only name in the calendar, that would be benefited by it.

To return, however, to our portrait: Cyril, it will be seen, is not only black, but as it were hedged in by blackness: whichever way he turns, he encounters a new smutch. A touch or two more, though hardly necessary to the completeness of the picture, may serve to illustrate the abundant resources of the artist. Socrates informs us, that Hypatia's murder "brought the greatest opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but upon the whole Alexandrian Church." Now if we substitute "suspicion" for "opprobrium," and leave out the "Alexandrian Church," it will look as if Cyril were thought to have had some hand in the murder: let us say, therefore, "A deep suspicion of its guilt attached to Cyril." Yet the original sentence of Socrates is too good to be lost, even in favor of the improved version: let us, therefore, give the statement in both forms; beginning the story of Hypatia by the stronger version, just quoted above, we will end it by adding-" a deep stain was fixed on Cyril and the Church of Alexandria." To make all sure, we will add-on the authority of Lamp-black"Cyril *** is said not to have been superior to an unworthy jealousy, at the greater concourse of hearers to the lectures of the eloquent Platonist, than to his own Sermons."

Finally, contrast is a means of the most striking effects in art to complete our portrait, we must bring out Cyril into

*Milman refers for this to Socrates, E. H. vii, 13-meaning, probably, vii, 15, as ch. 13 has nothing about Hypatia. Whichever chapter he may mean, there is not a word in either, or any where in Socrates, to sustain his assertion. In a note, however, to ch. 15, Valesius quotes Damascius to the effect, that Cyril, passing Hypatia's door one day, was smitten with jealousy at the number of carriages he saw there: a story justly censured by Dupin, as a mere piece of Pagan gossip. If Milman refers to this, it is very negligent in him (if not worse than negligent) to father it upon Socrates; for it thus receives a stamp of quasi-respectability, which it certainly would not have, if known to come from the hostile pen of a heathen philosopher. (On comparing the American and English editions of Milman, we find the same reference in both.)

the light of a glorious and transcendent contrast. Orestes will hardly answer the purpose: the most that can be done for him-and our artist has done it-is to ignore everything that seems to bear against him, and quietly to assume that he was the embodiment of all the cardinal virtues. But it is quite a different case with Hypatia; Hypatia, the pet of the good Governor, the pride of the Alexandrians, the glory of the Philosophers, the virgin sage, the incomparable high-priestess of a lofty Porphyrianism; Hypatia, the choice and lovely casket which contained alike the charms of Aphrodite and the gems of Eclectic Science: "She was a woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centered the lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her learning"-an Encyclopædia and Book of Beauty bound up in one. "She mingled freely with the Philosophers"-a dove trooping among crows-" without suspicion to her lofty and unblemished character.* Hypatia lived in great intimacy with the Prefect, Orestes”—who being a practical philosopher, delighting in hard or soft realities, more than in Platonic dreams, the intimacy certainly looked a little suspicious, yet-"the only charge whispered against her was, that she encouraged him in his hostility to the Patriarch." In short, Hypatia was a Heathen-who hated the Gospel, hated Christians, hated Christ.-What more is needed for a heroine ? Enough! Let her stand, in glowing colors, on the same canvass which contains the image of St. Cyril. Let the all-black be seen in proper contrast with the immaculate splendor of the allwhite, and the portrait of a "haughty and unscrupulous Prelate" may be left, without one touch more, to the student and admirer of Philosophic History.

Now-to dismiss all figure and all irony-it may readily be seen, in the phrases we have quoted from Dean Milman, that hardly one of them can be considered in itself a gross departure from the truth in some, the deflexion is so slight that it

*If we could venture to quote Damascius, Hypatia's admiring biographer, we might show that this "lofty and unblemished character" could unsex herself in the most revolting manner: the passage, however, is too indecent for quotation, even in Greek. It may be found in Suidas under the word Hypatia,or in Tillemont, Art. St. Cyrille.

may seem hypercritical to call attention to it. Yet, if we observe the cumulative effect; how a slight assumption here, and a faint innuendo there, in one place a doubt, in another a sneer, on one side a concealment, and on the other an exaggeration, all work quietly, and consistently, towards a pre-determined end if we notice the plan of all this, we shall understand how it is that color has so much to do with the work of the historian. We shall see also how necessary it is, when historians color highly, to be on our guard against them the more especially, as authorities are referred to only for facts and dates, hardly ever for the details of coloring and arrangement.

And this is the entire aim of our present article. With regard to Dean Milman and his history, as a whole, we do not wish to leave the impression, that the passages we have criticised are samples of his best manner, or that he often deals as unfairly as in the cases of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril. On the contrary, we believe we have chosen about the worst instances; and, though we have by no means exhausted these instances, for in our analysis of his St. Cyril we have not reached the point where his bias most appears*—yet we have purposely presented what we consider gross and decided faults. We might give scores of instances, in which Milman colors perhaps too highly, but yet with commendable impartiality. We might mention many others, in which a bias is perceptible, but yet so slight, that we should despair of our ability to analyze and expose it. It is easy enough to correct facts and dates: but to achromatize a statement, to separate the truth contained in it from the false philosophy with which it may be suffused, is a most difficult, tedious, disagreeable and thankless operation.

In short, we wish it to be understood, that we have not reviewed Milman in this Article, or Milman's works: we have merely availed ourselves of a well-known writer, who in many respects deservedly stands high, to call attention to a fault which he has in common with many others even more distinguished, and from which history has suffered more, perhaps, than is generally imagined. We have indited, in fact, a caution rather than a Review.

*We refer to his treatment of the Nestorian controversy-a thorough exposé of which would need a small volume.

ART. II.-SIZE OF APOSTOLIC AND ANTE-NICENE DIOCESES.

THE subject of Small Dioceses has already been discussed in this Review in a variety of ways, and has been viewed from various points of observation. Arguments from history and experience, ancient and modern, and from the nature of the Episcopal Office, have been adduced in support of the advantages supposed to arise from Small Dioceses. We propose, in the present Article, to discuss more fully than has heretofore been done, at least in the public press, whether weekly or quarterly, the size of Dioceses in the strictly Apostolic or post-Apostolic Church, and then to inquire what lessons we may learn for our guidance at the present day in reference to the same matter.

In the very outset of this discussion, therefore, it becomes necessary to ascertain what really was the size of the Primitive Dioceses. Although there exists a vague impression that they were comparatively small, there is a great difference of opinion as to their real extent. It is indeed a matter of considerable difficulty to determine this, with exactness. This difficulty has a three-fold source. 1. The scantiness of the early records of the Church. 2. The fact that the Sees were called after the chief city, and even when they are named, we have no mention of the amount of surrounding country under their jurisdiction. 3. To add still more to our perplexity, many cities are, by different writers, called by different names, as in the notable instances of Byzantium, afterwards called Constantinople, and Jerusalem, called afterwards, Elia. Of such changes in nomenclature, we cannot conclude that history always informs us. When we consider the numerous cities called after the different Roman Emperors, we cannot rationally suppose that they all sprang into existence during the reigns of those whom they commemorate. Many, beside those few of which history contains the record of the time and occasion of the change, must have been cities previously existing, whose names were altered