On those of the ixth and xth centuries, the recent event would have flashed with a double force.
Would Photius have spared such a reproach?
Could Liutprand have missed such scandal?
It is scarcely worth while to discuss the various readings of Martinus Polonus, Sigeber of Gamblours, or even Marianus Scotus; but a most palpable forgery is the passage of Pope Joan, which has been foisted into some Mss.

and editions of the Roman Anastasius.] [Footnote 131: As false, it deserves that name; but I would not pronounce it incredible.

Suppose a famous French chevalier of our own times to have been born in Italy, and educated in the church, instead of the army: her merit or fortune might have raised her to St.Peter's chair; her amours would have been natural: her delivery in the streets unlucky, but not improbable.] [Footnote 132: Till the reformation the tale was repeated and believed without offence: and Joan's female statue long occupied her place among the popes in the cathedral of Sienna, (Pagi, Critica, tom.iii.

p.
624-626.) She has been annihilated by two learned Protestants, Blondel and Bayle, (Dictionnaire Critique, Papesse, Polonus, Blondel;) but their brethren were scandalized by this equitable and generous criticism.
Spanheim and Lenfant attempt to save this poor engine of controversy, and even Mosheim condescends to cherish some doubt and suspicion, (p.
289.)] [Footnote 1321: John XI.

was the son of her husband Alberic, not of her lover, Pope Sergius III., as Muratori has distinctly proved, Ann.