oint; yet it may perhaps be permitted to observe, that in the most ancient
and esteemed manuscripts of the works of the authors above quoted, no
mention whatever is made of the Papissa Giovanna, and its introduction must
therefore have been the work of some later copyist.

The contemporary writers, moreover, some of whom were ocular witnesses of
the elections both of Leo IV. and Benedict III., make no mention whatever
of the circumstance; and it is well known that at Athens, where she is
stated to have studied, no such school as the one alluded to existed in the
ninth century.

The fact will not, I think, be denied that it was the practice of the
chroniclers of the early ages to note down the greater portion of what they
heard, without examining critically as to the credibility of the report;
and the mention of a fact once made, was amply sufficient for all
succeeding authors to copy the statement, and make such additions thereto
as best suited their respective fancies, without making any examination as
to the truth or probability of the original statement. And this appears to
have been the case with the point in question: Marianus Scotus first
stated, or rather some later copyist stated for him, the fact of a female
Pope; and subsequent writers added, at a later period, the additional facts
which now render the tale so evidently an invention.

R. R. M.

_Pope Joan_ (Vol. iii., p. 265.).--You have referred to Sir Thomas Browne,
and might have added the opinion of his able editor (_Works_, iii. 360.),
who says, "Her very existence itself seems now to be universally rejected
by the best authorities as a fabrication from beginning to end." On the
other hand, old Coryat, in his _Crudities_ (vol. ii. p. 443.), has the
boldness to speak with "certainty of her birth at a particular place,--viz.
at Mentz." Mosheim tells us (vol. ii. p. 300.) that during the five
centuries succeeding 855, "the event was generally believed." He quotes
some distinguished names, as well among those who maintained the truth of
the story as amongst those who rejected it as a fable. Bayle may be
included amongst the latter, who, in the third volume of his Dictionary
(Article PAPESSE), has gone deeply into the question. Mosheim himself seems
to leave it where Sir Roger de Coverley would have done,--"much may be said
on both sides."

J. H. M.

* * * * *

Replies to Minor Queries

_Robert Burton, his Birth-place_