any means the strangest feature of the case. That
Jerome should have availed himself ever so freely of the materials which
he found ready to his hand in the pages of Eusebius cannot be regarded as
at all extraordinary, after what we have just heard from himself of his
customary method of proceeding. It would of course have suggested the
gravest doubts as to whether we were here listening to the personal
sentiment of this Father, or not; but that would have been all. What are
we to think, however, of the fact that _Hedibia's question to Jerome_
proves on inspection to be nothing more than a translation of _the very
question which Marinus had long before addressed to Eusebius_? We read on,
perplexed at the coincidence; and speedily make the notable discovery that
her next question, and her next, are _also_ translations _word for word_
of the next two of Marinus. For the proof of this statement the reader is
again referred to the foot of the page.(94) It is at least decisive: and
the fact, which admits of only one explanation, can be attended by only
one practical result. It of course shelves the whole question as far as
the evidence of Jerome is concerned. Whether Hedibia was an actual
personage or not, let those decide who have considered more attentively
than it has ever fallen in my way to do that curious problem,--What was the
ancient notion of the allowable in Fiction? That different ideas have
prevailed in different ages of the world as to where fiction ends and
fabrication begins;--that widely discrepant views are entertained on the
subject even in our own age;--all must be aware. I decline to investigate
the problem on the present occasion. I do but claim to have established
beyond the possibility of doubt or cavil that what we are here presented
with _is not the testimony of Jerome at all_. It is evident that this
learned Father amused himself with translating for the benefit of his
Latin readers a part of the (lost) work of Eusebius; (which, by the way,
he is found to have possessed in the same abridged form in which it has
come down to ourselves:)--and he seems to have regarded it as allowable to
attribute to "Hedibia" the problems which he there met with. (He may
perhaps have known that Eusebius before him had attributed them, with just
as little reason, to "Marinus.") In that age, for aught that appears to
the contrary, it may have been regarded as a graceful compliment to
address solutions of Scripture difficu