the seid story, he wolde haue write of thilk greet; endewing, if eny such greet endewing hadde thanne be: and sithen Damasus not so wroot, it folewith that noon such greet endewing was bi Constantyn doon.
The iije. principal euydence is this: If eny such now seid endewing was mad bi Constantyn, sum mensioun schulde haue be mad therof in sum funda|mental and credible stori or cronicle. But so it is, that of thilk endewing no stori or cronicle makith mensioun, saue the legende or storie of Siluestris gestis and the oon bifore seid epistle putt and ascryued vn|likeli to Constantyn, and tho stories and cronicles which taken of it and folewen it; and neither thilk storiyng of Siluestris gestis neither the seid epistle is not credible neithir worthi be allowid, as it is schewid bifore in the next chapiter, and as schal better be cleer aftir in this present chapiter. Wherfore it is not to be takun and to be trowid as a trouthe, that Constantyn made eny such seid so [so is interlineated in a later hand.] greet endewing.
The iiije. principal euidence is this: The worthi and famose and credible stori clepid Thre departid storie (mad of thre moost famose and credible storiers in Greek lond in the daies of Theodosie not long after Constantyn) makith mensioun in the laste chapiter of the iije. book, and in the iiije. chapiter and vje. [The last reference is wrong; perhaps c. 35 is the place intended.] chapiter of the iiije. book, and bi manye othere chapitris in the hool book, that the greet Constantyn in hise laste daies, whanne he trowid be nyȝe his deeth, made his testament and departid his hool empire into thre par|ties, and tho thre parties he biquathe to hise thre sones, Constantinus, Constancius, and Constans; and in special he assigned and biquathe the lordschip of the west parti, which was Rome, with al the cuntrey
