ania, in Sicily, I have seen one of these nails, which
is believed to possess miraculous powers, and exhibited only once a year
with great solemnity. There is another in a private oratory of the
Escurial; and I was surprised in observing in the same case a relic of
Sir Thomas a Becket. All the nails, from the time of Constantine, are
rejected as spurious by Cardinal Baronius;[21] yet a former Pope had
expressed his belief in their authenticity;[22] and the ingenious idea
of miraculous vegetation might have been easily applied to them. But
to trace the other parts of this real or fabulous history, and more
especially their insertion in the Iron crown of Lombardy, would require,
though scarcely deserve, a separate essay.

[2] Read before the Royal Society of Literature, but since altered
by the author.

[3] For the discovery of the cross, compare Theodoret, lib. i. c.
18; Socrates, lib. i. c. 17; and Sozomen, lib. ii. c. 1, &c.

[4] De Vita Constant, lib. iii. c. 33.

[5] St. Cyril ap. Baronium, Annal. Eccles. A.D. 326, No. 50. One
whole epistle of St. Paulinis of Nola (the eleventh) is also
devoted to this subject.

[6] The participation of the Jews is positively asserted by
Eutychius (Annal. vol. ii. p. 212,) but doubted by Theophanes
(Chronograph, p. 252:) [Greek: os phasi tines], are his words.

[7] Eutychius, Annal, vol. ii. p. 242-247.

[8] Ducange, Gloss. Med. Graec., p. 1437.

[9] Theophanes, Chronograph. p. 280.

[10] Baronius, Annal. Eccles. A.D. 643. No. 1-4.

[11] Bede, Op. vol. iii. p. 370. Ed. Colon. Agripp. 1688.

[12] Epist, lib. 7. indict, i. ep. 34.

[13] Nicephor. Constantinopolit. p. 20.

[14] Theophanes, Chronograph. p. 318.

[15] Chronicon Casinense, lib. iii. c. 55.

[16] There is some account of its recovery by a Genoese, but it is
clouded with miracles. He walked over the sea, as over dry
land, &c. See Muraturi, Dissert. 58. vol. v. p. 10, ed. 1741.

[17] See Raynaldus, Aunual. Eccles. A.D. 1217, No. 39, and Pagi,
Critic. A.D. 1187, No. 4.

[18] See Dupleix, Historic de France, vol. ii. p. 257. ed. 1634.
The original authority is Nangis (Annales de St. Louis, p. 174.
ed. 1761.) Rigord, who speaks of the sale of this relic to
Philip Augustus, appears to be guilty of a fable or anachronism,
in which he