hadde not be lord therof. Wherfore the seid large endewing born upon Constantyn to be mad to Sil|uester Pope was neuere doon. An so eftsoone it is open that the seid epistle ascryued to Constantyn and the storie of Siluestris gestis ben not but vntrewe apocrifes.
The vje. principal evidence is this: In alle the daies fro the deeth of the Firste Constantyn in to the daies of the Firste Charlis (being king of Fraunce and em|perour of Rome to gidere bi v. C. ȝeer aftir the deeth of Siluester) regniden in successioun euermore oon em|perour after an other pesibili to gidere and at oonys upon the eest cuntrey of Greek lond, and upon the west cuntre of Rome, and bi west Rome, as is open ynouȝ in cronicles; and how and whi fro thens [frothens, MS., and similarly below, p. 366.] weren ij. emperouris oon in the West vpon Germanie and an other upon the Eest in Greek lond the cro|nicles declaren pleinli. In whiche daies, as it is miche likeli, came yn the lordschip which popis han had vpon Rome and the cuntrees aboute ligging, and that bi graunt of the First Charles, maad bi the pope emperour of Germanie, and bi graunt of Lodowic em|perour aftir the same Charles. But this myȝte not haue be trewe, if the seid greet endewing born upon Constantyn hadde be doon. Wherfore truthe is that it was neuere doon.
Neuertheles aȝens thilk endewing which the seid Damasus Pope spekith in his storie writun to Ierom, and which endewing Damasus berith upon the First Constantyn to be mad to chirchis in Rome and to mynystrie in hem, y wole not replie, neither argue, neither holde and trowe, bi cause that forto ther aȝens holde y haue noon euydence: but certis thilk endewing maad bi Constantyn in vnmouable godis to dyuerse chirchis in Rome, of which endewing so spekith
