▁highlight ed ▁by ▁Protest ant ▁writer , ▁Tim othy ▁F . ▁K auff man , ▁as ▁a ▁correction ▁to ▁the ▁an ach ron ism ▁created ▁by ▁the ▁assumption ▁that ▁each ▁bishop ▁was ▁already ▁pres iding ▁over ▁a ▁whole ▁dioc ese ▁at ▁the ▁time ▁of ▁the ▁council . ▁According ▁to ▁K auff man , ▁since ▁Milan ▁and ▁Rome ▁were ▁both ▁located ▁within ▁the ▁Dioc ese ▁of ▁Italy , ▁and ▁Ant io ch ▁and ▁Alexand ria ▁were ▁both ▁located ▁within ▁the ▁Dioc ese ▁of ▁Ori ens , ▁a ▁relevant ▁and ▁" struct ural ▁con gru ency " ▁between ▁Rome ▁and ▁Alexand ria ▁was ▁readily ▁apparent ▁to ▁the ▁gathered ▁b ish ops : ▁both ▁had ▁been ▁made ▁to ▁share ▁a ▁dioc ese ▁of ▁which ▁neither ▁was ▁the ▁chief ▁metropol is . ▁Rome ' s ▁juris diction ▁within ▁Italy ▁had ▁been ▁defined ▁in ▁terms ▁of ▁several ▁of ▁the ▁city ' s ▁adjacent ▁provinces ▁since ▁Dioc let ian ' s ▁re order ing ▁of ▁the ▁emp ire ▁in ▁ 2 9 3 , ▁as ▁the ▁earliest ▁Latin ▁version ▁of ▁the ▁canon ▁indicates , ▁and ▁the ▁rest ▁of ▁the ▁Italian ▁provinces ▁were ▁under ▁the ▁juris diction ▁of ▁Milan . ▁ ▁That ▁provincial ▁arrangement ▁of ▁Roman ▁and ▁Milan ese ▁juris diction ▁within ▁Italy ▁therefore ▁was ▁a ▁relevant ▁preced ent , ▁and ▁provided ▁an ▁administrative ▁solution ▁to ▁the ▁problem ▁facing ▁the ▁council — nam ely , ▁how ▁to ▁define ▁Alexand rian ▁and ▁Ant io ch ian ▁juris diction ▁within ▁the ▁Dioc ese ▁of ▁Ori ens . ▁In ▁canon ▁ 6 ,