[s. E. daavson] THE LINES OF DEMARCATION 487 



in another Bull was omitted. The case is not parallel to that of the 

 preparation of dogmatic Bulls, but is parallel rather to a copy of the 

 judgment of some high civil court in which errors may be found on 

 examination before publication and the Spanish envoy on looking into 

 the first document could easily see that what his master had specially 

 asked for was not there. 



With regard to the Eximiae devotionis (Mr. Harrisse's B) he is un- 

 doubtedly right in taking it to be a real Bull; but it is misleading to call 

 it a "privilege/' and it is a litteni in no other sense than other written 

 communications are litterae. The historians he refers to (without men- 

 tioning their names) who take the Bull to be "a simple invoice sent 

 " with Bulls A and C, wlien they were sent to Spain," must have wan- 

 dered from some shipping business into the regions of history and canon 

 law. Mr. Harrisse explains that it was not like an " invoice " or an 

 abstract of a "grant'' or "testament" or "bill of sale" or "conveyance." 

 It was not "exactly an abridgment of the primary Bull ;" it might, he 

 thinks, be called "a papal Bull for common use." It certainly was very 

 far from being any one of these things. It was simply a deliverance 

 of the Roman court in the usual form of a Bull and, as will appear on 

 reading it in appendix B, it had a clear and distinct meaning, and the 

 sentence in it "prout in nosfris imle confecUs Ktferis plenius continetur/' 

 refers to the line of demarcation intended to be in Bull A but omitted. 

 When the Bull was redrawn, the next day, as Bull C the clause omitted 

 was inserted, for that missing clause of demarcation was the essential 

 motive of the whole transaction. .The Roman chancery was as Mr. 

 Plarrisse obsen^es evidently hurried beyond its usual leisurely pace. 



The date of this Bull (B) is May 3 — ^the same date as that of the 

 unpublished Bull. It is not met with in the ordinary books, and has 

 therefore, been given in appendix B. Mr. Harrisse has given it in an 

 English version. In appendix A of this paper is, as has been said, a 

 copy of Bull C — the historic Bull. If the reader will omit all the 

 words in italics and read into it all the words in the footnotes, in their 

 places as marked, he will reconstruct the text of the rejected draft. 

 He will see that the draughtsman erred in two directions, first, by making 

 mention of the rights of Portugal which were to form, and did form 

 the subject matter of a separate Bull (B) and, second, by omitting the 

 judgment of the Pope delimiting the territories of the two crowns. 

 The re-drafting of the Bull made the correction in both directions ; 

 for upon a careful comparison, it will appear that the matter dropped 

 from the first draft (Bull A) which is all shown in the footnotes in ap- 

 pendix A, refers solely to the rights of Portugal and is nothing else 

 tlian what is given in JUill B Eximiae devotionis; while the italicised 



