ON ST. SALOMON THE BISHOP, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR,
CALLED ALSO SALO OR SALONIUS, AT GENOA IN ITALY
A critical Sylloge from the Martyrologies.
Salomon, Salo or Salonius, at Genoa in Italy. (S.)
BY J. S.
St. Salomon commemorated at Genoa, is by others attributed to Geneva. Baronius in the Roman Martyrology at XXVIII September has it thus: At Genoa, of St. Salomon, bishop and confessor. He observes in the Annotations that the same man is called by Usuard Salonius, or rather Salo. Castellanus in his Universal Martyrology repeats the words of Baronius in French after his manner; but in the margin he adds an observation expressed thus: "That is, according to the ancient Martyrologies: At Geneva, St. Salo (or Salonius), in all likelihood the first of that name, omitted in the catalogues, who subscribed to the first council of Orléans with St. Eucherius his father; rather than the second, who subscribed to the fourth council of Paris with another Salonius, bishop of Embrun." Many things are here said briefly, but more from conjecture than from any document or ancient record. Yet Castellanus was neither the first nor the only one to conjecture that he who today is commemorated in the ancient Martyrologies is a bishop of Geneva rather than of Genoa. That conjecture was formed earlier by Florentini in his Annotations on the Hieronymian Martyrology: but he preferred to believe that the man indicated is the Salonius who after the middle of the sixth century certainly presided over the church of Geneva, rather than the son of St. Eucherius, whose episcopal see cannot so certainly be fixed at Geneva.
[2] He is constantly attributed in the ancient Calendars to Genoa, That that controversy may be examined, the most ancient Martyrologies must be consulted. The Hieronymian text, as it was published by Florentini, has it thus: In the city of Genoa in Gaul, the deposition of St. Salo, bishop. The most ancient Epternach copy makes no mention of Gaul;
but its words are there recited in the Annotations thus: In the city of Genoa, of Salvinus the bishop. No more is mention made of Gaul in the Corbie copy, where these things are read: In the city of Genoa, the deposition of Salonius, bishop and confessor. The more abridged Martyrologies bring no help; since in most he is omitted, while in three perhaps he is commemorated under a corrupted name, but without a place. In the Augsburg copy there stands Sidonius; in Labbe's, Sadonus; in the Gellone copy, Saclo. I suspect that Salonius is everywhere indicated: but that cannot avail for the controversy on either side. If judgment were to be passed only from what has been alleged, it would already seem to me more probable that St. Salonius was bishop of Genoa than of Geneva. For in all the passages alleged he is attributed to Genoa, in none to Geneva. But that in Florentini's codices the city is placed in Gaul can be seen as added from the ignorance of the transcribers, since in two other codices it is not read.
[3] But let us also examine what those martyrologists have who possessed the aforesaid Martyrologies in the ninth century, but in some there is added, "in Gaul"; and in part followed them. Rabanus has it thus: In Gaul, in the city of Genoa, the deposition of Salo the bishop. This favours Florentini, and is consonant with his codices. But Usuard is entirely opposed, since he expresses Genoa by that name which was in use in the Middle Ages, writing thus: In the city of Janua, of St. Salo, bishop and confessor. Usuard, I think, did not find in his Hieronymian codices the words in Gaul; or, if he did find them, he held them for a corruption. Other records of the Middle Ages, but less ancient, also disagree. In the Martyrology of St. Savin of Lavedan, which Saussay published after the Gallican Martyrology, it again has it thus: In Gaul, in the city of Genoa, the deposition of St. Solanus, bishop and confessor. But the Franco-Gallican Hagiology, which Labbe published, has it thus at the following day: In the city of Janua, of St. Salo, bishop and confessor. In the Appendix of Ado is read: In the city of Genna, the deposition of Salonius the bishop. By the easy change of a single letter Genna has been put for Genua. Peter de Natalibus, book XI, chap. 263, writes these things: Salomon, bishop and confessor, in the city of Janua fell asleep in peace on the same day, that is, on the XXVIII of September, which had preceded. In Wandelbert, after the verses, without a place, he is commemorated thus at the following day: The deposition of St. Salo the bishop.
[4] The things brought forward thus far seem to make Baronius's opinion much more probable whence the controversy arose. than the opposite one, because everywhere in the Calendars the Saint is attributed to Genua, or to Janua or Januæ, by which name not a few in the middle and later ages designated Genoa, that most famous city of Italy, although Genoa never entirely lost its ancient name. But the patrons of the contrary opinion were not ignorant of that, and therefore they by no means think the controversy decided by that observation. Indeed they can object that the name of Genua and Janua was also given to the city of Geneva, and for this reason they contend that by the added words in Gaul the controversy is to be decided in favour of Geneva. This is the chief and only argument of Florentini, of Castellanus, and of our Sollier in his observations on Usuard — where, however, Sollier wished to decide nothing, but referred the controversy to this place. Hadrian Valois collected most of the variations of the name of Geneva in his Notitia Galliarum, p. 229; and the present controversy has brought it about that I myself have wished to inspect, in the Collections of the Historians of Gaul, all the diversities of the said name down to the ninth century, that I might the more rightly weigh the argument drawn from the name.
[5] Now by this inspection I judge that I have sufficiently ascertained Geneva did not begin to be called Genua before the ninth century that the name Genua began to be used of the city of Geneva much later than the time when Salo or Salomon was inscribed in the Hieronymian codices, announced in the city of Genua. For since he is found in the most ancient copies, even in the Epternach one, it is most likely that the name of Salonius was inserted into the Hieronymian Calendars from the sixth century, or at least the seventh, and perhaps much sooner. Certainly it can in no way be said that it was inserted after the beginning of the eighth century, in which the Epternach codex was written. But that Geneva was named Genua by any writer, Valois did not find before the writers of Charlemagne, that is, before the ninth century; nor could I find it. St. Gregory of Tours, book 4, chap. 31, must not be brought forward, where indeed he treats of the city of Geneva, and Duchesne printed Genua. For this reading has already been corrected by Ruinart, who printed Jenuba and notes Janoba in others. In what way the Bishop of Tours himself wrote, I shall not inquire scrupulously: but I only observe that Genua was not so called by him, as is proved not only by the multitude of codices in which the reading is different, but also from other passages of Gregory concerning Geneva: since no one has found Genua in these, but a very different name. Wherefore La Martinière in his geographical Dictionary, at the word Genève, did not rightly infer from that corrupt reading that Geneva was in the sixth century called Genua and Janoba under a corrupted name. Sound logic at least could not infer both names from a single word variously read; nor teach anything certain from an uncertain reading.
[6] or at any rate toward the end of the eighth century: Fredegar, who abridged and continued the History of the Bishop of Tours, speaks of Geneva at various turns; but he names it Genava, never Genua. Once, as Ruinart will have it, at col. 557 he said Janua. But here again others read otherwise, so that this reading is once more suspect, especially since elsewhere Fredegar constantly wrote Genava, and the same name was in use in those times both in the Notitiæ of the provinces and bishoprics and in the subscriptions of the councils. But the anonymous Continuator of Fredegar, who wrote in the eighth century, in chap. 121 undoubtedly calls Geneva Janua. At length, however, the said Valois observed that by the writers of Charlemagne it was named both Genua and Jenua, and sometimes also Janua; and the diligent reader will find this in Bouquet, vol. 5 of the Writers of the Affairs of Gaul, if only he consults the places assigned in the Geographical index. He will likewise find that at the same time it also began to be called Gebenna. But all these appear to be no older than the ninth century, or at any rate nothing of these was written before the eighth century was growing old: for I have not inquired so curiously into the time of each that I should wish to determine it here; nor is it necessary to our purpose to examine whether any of them was written before the end of the eighth century.
[7] but the Saint was commemorated at Genoa much sooner; For whether it was toward the end of the eighth century or in the ninth that the name Genua and Jenua began to be used by some to designate the city of Geneva, we must not infer from that that it was already so called in the sixth or seventh century, or even much sooner, in the Hieronymian codices. If the name were so expressed in one codex, while in others either Geneva or Genava were read, we should rightly believe that the name in the one codex had been corrupted by the carelessness of the copyists. But all the codices we know agree: all have Genua. And if perhaps those codices are not all older than the ninth or the closing eighth century, as the Epternach one is older, all of them were certainly transcribed from older ones. And so there remains the consensus of the older codices, announcing St. Salo at Genoa, at a time when Geneva was not yet known by that name: indeed perhaps Geneva was never called by that name by its inhabitants or neighbours, but only by a few foreigners who used a corrupted name.
[8] [& there was never a cult at Geneva, nor was he inserted in the catalogues of the bishops.] To this argument drawn from the name there is added another, which chiefly moved me to this inquiry. We do not know that any Salonius was ever venerated at Geneva or in any city of Gaul as a bishop of Geneva. Let the patrons of Geneva now choose, and say which they will have: that St. Salonius was inscribed in the Hieronymian Calendars in the fifth or sixth century, or rather in the seventh or the beginning of the eighth. Castellanus conjectures that he died about the year 469: Florentini assigns another a whole century later. In whichever of these centuries he was added to the Martyrology, he will also have had a cult. If he was added to the Calendars after the fifth century and had a cult, how did that cult afterwards lapse, seeing that there was a perpetual succession of Catholic bishops at Geneva down to the times of the Calvinist heresy? How did Ado, archbishop of Vienne, under whose metropolitan see Geneva lay, not know a holy bishop of a church suffragan to himself, and pass him over in his Martyrology, if he had flourished in the fifth century and had obtained a cult in the sixth or later? How is it that Salonius, if he was the son of St. Eucherius and a Saint, is not found even in any catalogues of the church of Geneva? Certainly in those catalogues many older bishops are found of whose sanctity nothing is established, so that it would be altogether astonishing that there should have been omitted from them a prelate memorable above the rest both for his own sanctity and for his father's, and indeed known by many deeds besides.
[9] Tillemont, vol. 15, Note 6 on St. Eucherius, inquires Salonius the son of St. Eucherius had as brother St. Veranus of Vence, of what city Salonius the son of St. Eucherius appears to have been bishop, and strives to prove that he could have been of Geneva: but how uncertain the whole matter is he acknowledges in these words: "Nevertheless it would be rash to wish to affirm anything about matters so obscure and so uncertain." Indeed to me the episcopate of Salonius at Geneva does not seem even probable, as I shall presently show by examining the reasons which are brought forward on both sides. But that this examination may be made clearer, some things must be noted which are admitted as certain concerning Salonius. Salonius flourished in the fifth century, and had as father St. Eucherius, afterwards bishop of Lyons, whose death is fixed about the middle of that same fifth century. That epoch will be able to be examined more at large at XVI November, on which St. Eucherius is read in the Roman Martyrology. Salonius's brother was St. Veranus the bishop, about whose see there is likewise dispute: but the commoner and more probable opinion holds that he was bishop of Vence in modern Provence, not far from the border of the county of Nice, as was proved at X September, where St. Veranus was treated of. Both brothers, Salonius and Veranus, were educated in the monastery of Lérins, and there had excellent masters, and finally both were promoted to the episcopate.
[10] The common opinion is that that Salonius who in the year 441 subscribed to the council of Orange, he was present at two councils and with others wrote to St. Leo: in Labbe, vol. 3, col. [ ], is Salonius the son of St. Eucherius, of whom we treat: for it is proved from elsewhere also that he was already bishop about the year 440. Subscribed to the same council is read Ceretius, whom we shall afterwards see joined also with Salonius and Veranus. Labbe, vol. 4, col. [ ], mentions another council of thirteen bishops, which was held at Arles to settle the controversy between Theodore the bishop and the monastery of Lérins. Among the said thirteen bishops Salonius is again reckoned, whom to be seen as the son of Eucherius is rightly acknowledged by
Tillemont in his St. Eucherius, art. 7, where he fixes that council of bishops about 450 or 451: by others it is fixed about 455; for the year is uncertain. Among the Letters of St. Leo the Pope, after the seventy-sixth, there is published a Letter of the bishops Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus to St. Leo, in which they give him thanks for Leo's famous Letter to Flavian of Constantinople. They also send the Letter back to him transcribed, that, if anything should be wanting through the copyist's error, he might deign to emend it, or to add anything that had afterwards been added by himself. They add this reason: That not only many holy bishops our brethren throughout the Gauls, but also many of the laity your sons, who greatly desire that Letter for the manifestation of the truth, may deserve to transcribe, to read, and to hold it, sent back to us and emended by your holy hand. From these words it is gathered that those three were bishops of Gaul. Nor does the said Tillemont doubt that Salonius and Veranus are brothers and sons of St. Eucherius.
[11] upon which several observations are given: From that Letter it is further gathered most probably that the episcopal sees of Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus were near one another, since they at first alone had that famous Letter of St. Leo, and were unwilling to communicate it to the remaining bishops of the Gauls unless the fidelity of their copy were established. But that doubt about the fidelity of the copy altogether implies that the aforesaid three bishops had not received a copy of the Letter from Leo himself, but that it had been sent to them from elsewhere. For they had no need to send back to Leo for review a copy which he himself had sent. Now since St. Leo's Letter to Flavian was given in the year 449, the Letter of Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus could have been written either at the end of that same year or in the following year 450. Presently, among the Letters of St. Leo, there follows a Letter of the Bishops of Gaul, who later gave thanks to St. Leo for the Letter to Flavian, perhaps when they had received the Letter through the good offices of the three preceding. Certainly the bishops of the province of Milan received the same Letter through Ceretius, as they themselves testify in their synodical Letter to Leo, printed after Leo's seventy-seventh, in these words: Which (the Letter to Flavian) came to us at your admonition, our holy brother and fellow-bishop Ceretius lending it. These things being observed, let us look at the matter itself, and examine with what likelihood they contend that Salonius, plainly unknown in the catalogues of the bishops of Geneva, is to be attributed to the aforesaid city as its bishop.
[12] & from the aforesaid it is concluded, First, Salonius was present at the first council of Orange, as all acknowledge as though beyond doubt. But it is not likely that a prelate of Geneva was present at the said council of Orange, over which St. Hilary of Arles presided, as Tillemont himself saw and suggested in Note 6 on St. Eucherius. St. Eucherius of Lyons was indeed present. But he by his very subscription indicated that he was of another province, expressing it thus: I Eucherius, bishop, have subscribed, being about to await upon these matters the assent of the holy priests of my province. So subscribed the metropolitan of the province of Lyons. But all the rest subscribed simply, without doubt because they were from the provinces convoked. But no one in that council appears to have been from the province of Vienne, under which Geneva lay. By what reason then could Salonius simply subscribe the canons in that council, especially since at that time a long-standing controversy over the right of primacy was raging between the metropolitan sees of Arles and Vienne? Tillemont did not explain these things, content to have said that Salonius of Geneva could have been present by chance, just as St. Eucherius was there.
[13] that it is neither likely nor probable, Secondly, Salonius was again present at the third council of Arles, which in an uncertain year about 450 or 455 was convoked by Ravennius of Arles to end the controversy which existed between Theodore, bishop of Fréjus, and Faustus, abbot of Lérins. Of the thirteen bishops who were present and are named in Labbe, vol. 4, col. [ ], none appears to have been of the province of Vienne. Indeed it is not even probable that any one from that province was present, on account of the controversy already mentioned about the metropolitan right, which raged under Ravennius between the churches of Vienne and Arles. Tillemont, who treats of that council in vol. 15 in his St. Rusticus of Narbonne, does not declare whether it again came about by chance that Salonius was present with the rest, yet even so with closed eyes he called him bishop of Geneva. Nevertheless in his St. Hilary of Arles, art. 10, he observes that in the time of that controversy, of which he there discourses, none of the bishops of Vienne is ever found in the councils gathered by those of Arles. But if the metropolitans of Vienne themselves were unwilling to attend those councils, it is not likely that their suffragans betook themselves to them, or could do so without offending their own metropolitan.
[14] Thirdly, Salonius with Veranus and Ceretius wrote about the year 450 to St. Leo about the receipt of his Letter, that that Salonius was bishop of Geneva. before the remaining bishops of the Gauls did so. From this, moreover, we gathered most probably that the episcopates of those three were near one another. Of these, that of Vence alone is known, in the modern province toward the borders of Italy. But that the episcopate of Ceretius was also in those parts becomes likely from this, that Leo's Letter was communicated through Ceretius to the archbishop of Milan, so that he too seems not to have been far from Italy. But Salonius would have been at a very great distance from Veranus, if he had had his see at Geneva. Tillemont therefore has recourse again to chance, by which Salonius happened to be with two other bishops at that time. But so many chances have here to be feigned that no probability will be left to that opinion. For it will also be a chance that the people of Geneva sought for themselves a bishop from the far distant island of Lérins, whom in all likelihood they had never seen; that we can show by no indication that that Salonius was ever in the city of Geneva; that he is found in none of the catalogues of that church; that he was there honoured, so far as we know, by no cult whatever. Far more probably shall we substitute for so many marvels one less unusual — namely, that that opinion arose from slight conjectures, without consideration of the difficulties by which it cannot stand.
[15] Tillemont in Note 6 on St. Eucherius did what he could Answer is given to the arguments to render Salonius's episcopate at Geneva at least probable, and yet he did not accomplish it. First he proves that he was not bishop of Vienne, which we readily believe, and which can also be confirmed by the reasons brought against the episcopate of Geneva. Secondly he strives to prove that neither was he bishop of Genoa. This to me also is more probable, as I shall say below. Thirdly, in favour of Geneva he brings forward these words, At Genua in Gaul, by which, he says, he is announced in almost all the Martyrologies. But the "almost all Martyrologies" which are so liberally boasted must be reduced to Florentini's Hieronymian codices alone, the Martyrology of Rabanus, and a few later ones. But the words in Gaul are not read in the Epternach codex, which Florentini confesses to be older than his own codices. The same words are omitted in the less ancient Corbie copy, so that it must be said that they were not found in the codex from which that one was written. Wherefore they are to be held for an addition of the copyists, and indeed for an error which could easily creep upon them after Geneva had begun to be called by some Genua, and Genoa itself Janua. It can also be a transposition of words. For in the codices Alodius of Auxerre precedes, to whom the words in Gaul could have been added, and yet were not added; so that perhaps the copyist referred them to a place not their own.
[16] But, says Tillemont, Geneva in Latin is confounded with Genua. brought forward for the see of Geneva. But I have shown that this only began about the beginning of the ninth century; and therefore it can avail nothing for Geneva. For the name of Salo was certainly inscribed in the Martyrology sooner. But if that was done in the fifth or sixth or even the seventh century, how could he be announced at Genua, as is constantly read in all, if he was of Geneva? If anyone should wish to contend that he was added to the Martyrology only in the eighth or ninth century, he will neither say what is likely, nor will he ever explain how he could have been unknown to Ado of Vienne, and not only be banished from the catalogues of the bishops of Geneva, but at Geneva also lack all cult. And so the confusion of names which followed afterwards can here have no force, and Usuard prudently wrote Januis, that he might avoid that confusion of names of his own time. Tillemont adds that by our Bolland, vol. 2 of February, p. 360, the son of St. Eucherius is called bishop of Geneva. But he did not read Bolland rightly: for Bolland there makes Salonius bishop of Genoa, not of Geneva. Rather, with Jean Savaron, whom he cites, he denies that he was of Lyons, and declares in a word that he was of Genoa, as Savaron in his edition of the Works of Apollinaris Sidonius, p. 469, endeavours to prove at greater length.
[17] More probably too he was not bishop of Genoa: But as regards Salonius's episcopate at Genoa, there are at least better reasons for it than for that of Geneva; since Genoa is constantly named in the Calendars, and on the same day Salomon is venerated at Genoa. For the name either in the Calendars or at Genoa may have been slightly altered. Wherefore I plainly judge that the man commemorated in the Calendars is the same whom the Genoese venerate. But that Salonius the son of Eucherius was bishop of Genoa is to me less probable. For this Salonius, since he was present at the first council of Orange and the third of Arles, and wrote with Veranus and Ceretius to Pope Leo, appears to have been a bishop in Gaul, and to have had his see somewhere in modern Provence or the Dauphiné toward the borders of Italy. Besides, Genoa certainly had another bishop in the year 452, since to the Letter of the council of Milan cited above to St. Leo there subscribed Paschasius, bishop of the church of Genoa, after whom several others also subscribed, so that he does not appear to have been promoted to the episcopate a little before. Tillemont fixes that synodical Letter in the year 451, nor is it necessary to examine its epoch here more curiously; since Paschasius appears to have sat at least while Salonius was alive, so that the latter was not from the beginning bishop of Genoa. Wherefore I do not see how Salonius could have been bishop of Genoa, unless he had been driven from his former see by some persecution, and for that reason elected bishop by the Genoese. But such things are not to be asserted from mere conjecture. Salonius could also be venerated at Genoa if he had died there, or if his body had been translated thither; but of this conjecture too we have no foundation, no adequate reason.
[18] so that the Salomon venerated at Genoa appears to be another, And so, conjectures being set aside, we prefer to be ignorant at what time St. Salomon of Genoa lived, whom nevertheless we believe to be the same as the Salo or Salonius commemorated in the Martyrologies. Ughelli, vol. 4 of Italia Sacra, among the bishops of Genoa — of whose earlier ones many have been lost — places Salomon first, at an uncertain time, and writes the following about him: St. Salomon, whom others call Salo, was the first bishop of Genoa whose memory had come down to posterity. There is an old tradition that he lived in those early times in which the Christian faith
began to strike deeper roots among the Genoese, as in a well-broken soil. His sacred body is honourably preserved in the metropolitan church, and his feast-day is celebrated on the IV Kalends of October. Of him mention is made by the Roman Martyrology, by Baronius in the Notes, by Peter in his Catalogue, book XI, chap. 263 (rather 265), by Jacobus de Voragine in the Lives of the holy bishops of Genoa, his predecessors. In the printed Calendar of the Saints of Genoa, the feast of St. Salomon, bishop of Genoa and confessor, is noted at XXVIII September as a double. We have an Italian Life of the same, but one which adds nothing to these things beyond words and reasonings. Castellanus in his Hagiological Vocabulary says that nothing is found about Salomon of Genoa in true antiquity. But he himself brings forward six hundred Saints of Gaul about whom nothing is known but the cult; and about Salonius of Geneva, whom he has fashioned for himself, not even a cult will ever be known: nor are such indications of sanctity brought forward about that Salonius that he cannot be without a cult.
[19] As regards the more recent martyrologists — some of whom, however, are older than Baronius — and bishop of that city. they announce Salomon at Genoa as though in rivalry: as the author of the manuscript Florarium Sanctorum, Bellinus, Molanus and the other editors of Usuard, Maurolycus, Galesinius; and, besides others whom I pass over, Ferrari in his Catalogue of the Saints of Italy sets the title On St. Salomon, first bishop of Genoa. And he weaves the elogium briefly thus: Salomon, whom Usuard calls Salo, was, by the ancient tradition of the city, the first to govern the church of the Genoese. Now he lived in times near to the primitive Church, and shone forth in sanctity, and is placed first in the series of the bishops of Genoa by all the writers of that city… His body, laid under the high altar of the metropolitan church, has great veneration among the Genoese: whose feast-day is celebrated on the IV Kalends of October. I have omitted what he discourses about the successor, since it does not pertain here. Whether he was the first bishop of Genoa, Ughelli does not declare; but he places him first among those who have become known.
[20] I was thinking to put an end to this inquiry; but I see that even against my will I am drawn also into Spain. The writings are fictitious from which he was called both bishop of Carthagena For thither John Tamayo de Salazar wished to drag St. Salomon, writing thus in his Spanish Martyrology at this day: At Janua near Segura in Spain, of St. Salomon, bishop of Carthago Spartaria, who, illustrious for virtues, beneficent toward the poor, provident toward his sheep, and rigid toward himself, obtained glory as a renowned confessor. Then for that opinion he adduces the supposititious works of the Pseudo-Julian, and the equally fictitious poems of Aulus Halus, figments of a later age, which to have named is the same as to have refuted. Nicolás Antonio refuted the fable in his posthumous manuscripts, beginning thus: Ridiculous indeed is the equivocation of the city of Janua with that place in Spain which they now call Puerta or la Puerta, which means the same to Spaniards as Janua or a gate. Then he shows that that place was sought for the sake of the Salomon who is announced by Usuard at Janua, but wrongly and ridiculously, since that place of Spain which is now called Porta was never called Janua. He also refutes at greater length Tamayo, who asserted that Genoa was never called Janua. But that name of Genoa in the Middle Ages is better known than that more should need to be transferred hither about these matters.
[21] & bishop of Braga in Spain. The masked author of the Pseudo-Julian evidently believed that St. Salomon was so little known that he could easily be transferred into Spain. But, forgetful of himself, he attempted to do this not once only, but even twice, and in different ways, as the said Antonio observes after the refutation of what Tamayo adopted, subjoining these words: But the trifles about that Salomon do not stop here. For he who in this place is Salomon bishop of Carthagena is in another place bishop of Braga, brother of Melantius of Toledo, of whom we have treated at large in examining the sham catalogue of the bishops of Toledo. For at Adv. 281 he says thus: "This holy pontiff (Salomon of Braga, as appears from what precedes) while he was going, as is believed, to visit the holy Pope Marcellinus, died at Genoa on XXVIII September." Laugh, reader, at the inconstancy of the forgetful man, who plants his foot nowhere, and come away with me to other things. Thus far the said Antonio in his posthumous manuscripts, which were communicated to our Elders in the year 1721. I add no more about these matters, since learned Spaniards have long since cast away those wares, ill foisted upon them.