as much as has been granted to our mortality, up to this age, to be ignorant of it is most shameful. For if, as Cicero says, this is the greatest difference between man and beast, that the latter is moved only by what it senses, and accommodates itself only to what is present and at hand, sensing very little of the past or future, while man, since he is a participant in reason, perceives consequences, sees the principles and causes of things, and is not ignorant of their progress and, as it were, their antecedents, compares similarities, and adds and joins future things to present ones, easily viewing the whole course of life and preparing the things necessary for living it—then one who does not progress beyond his own age in memory and thought is hardly worthy of the name of man. And A the foreknowledge of future things, if such there be, is believed to be a divine gift rather than a product of human wit: although there are not wanting those who, impelled by nature, or aided by art, or taught by the practice of affairs, predict things that are to come long after. This faculty would indeed reach further and be much more illustrious if these three things were joined in one man: yet ignorance of the past, in a man even moderately schooled in letters, has hardly any excuse. For we cannot complain here, as we might in the former case, of the difficulty of the subject or the weakness of our nature, but rather it is supine negligence, or superfluous occupation, or an empty pursuit of pleasure that bears all the blame. For who among all mortals is so overwhelmed with business that, if he were a frugal and prudent dispenser of his most precious and irreparable treasure of time, he could not daily spend one or two hours in reading and meditating without any harm to his health and the conduct of his affairs? We see, indeed, on what trifles—not to say anything harsher—the time of most people is wasted, which would be far more rightly devoted to the study of wisdom. Nor does the most grave man Seneca exclaim without reason that a great part of life slips away from those who do nothing, a larger part from those who do wrong, and the whole of it from those who are busy with other things, and that as a result we become ignorant of necessary things because we have learned those that are superfluous. By "superfluous," moreover, he B understands an immoderate desire for pleasures, honors, power, and money, while the "necessary" is philosophy, that is, the knowledge of human and divine things: if this were possessed in perfection by any mortal, there is no doubt that the eyes and minds of all would be turned toward him alone as toward a certain god. Now, because many bandy about the empty name, but very few are as the right reason demands, it happens that the thing itself is not commonly understood, and the name is held in equal hatred and ridicule. And I do not know how rightly so. For neither is a discipline or a way of life justly discredited because of the ignorance or perversity of men: and those who judge so severely would not even approve of themselves, unless they were afflicted by an error of mind. For they are men like others, and subject to the same passions: and it is not very generous to attack one or two flaws while dissembling the virtues, among which, in philosophers, not the least is the desire to seek the truth and to moderate the passions, so that they may be constrained within the limits of nature, and to produce as many as possible by their own best efforts. But to demand that they cast themselves below all the lowest of men, and live in extreme filth after the manner of the Cynics, is a sign of immense ignorance and pride. But I return to history, which, since it is a somewhat coarser type of philosophy, and instructs civil and private life by examples rather than by abstract reasoning, C there is no doubt that it has great utility conjoined with the highest delight. Regarding what is mainly to be observed in it, Livy wisely warns in these words: "Let each one intently apply his mind to these things: what kind of life, what kind of morals they were, through what men, and by what arts, both at home and in war, the empire was acquired and increased. Then, as discipline gradually failed, let him follow in his mind how morals first dissented, then, as they slipped more and more, how they then began to plunge headlong, until this time was reached, in which we can endure neither our vices nor their remedies. This is what is especially healthy and fruitful in the knowledge of things: to see the evidence of every example placed upon a conspicuous monument: from thence you may take for yourself and your state what to imitate, and from thence what to avoid (i.e., what is foul in its inception and foul in its outcome)." So far he. But also Cicero, beyond the fact that he says "to be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be always a child," adorns history with great praises, when he calls it the witness of times, the light of truth, the life of memory, the mistress of life, and the messenger of antiquity. While I do not deny that these things are true (for the fabulous accounts of some cannot corrupt the thing itself), yet, if we evaluate the plans, acts, and events of all ages for the most part, what is history other than some vast sea, or rather a miserable shipwreck of human folly, D wickedness, and misery, and a mirror of private and political life far more illustrious than any comedy or tragedy? This thought has constantly occupied my senses and mind in the working out of this work. For whether sacred or profane, whether new or ancient things came to mind, whether Hebrew or Greek matters were treated, I saw the same cabbage being served again, the same canticle being sung: all things full of errors, crimes, frauds, lies, deceits, hardships, dissensions, murders, and destructions. So that the thing itself abundantly teaches that the human intellect has been depraved from its very birth, and that the divine curse-laden sentence was not in vain, since everywhere the sweat of the brow, everywhere thorns and thistles, everywhere the snares of the serpent appear. The good and simple are few: and if there are any, they sometimes fall into crime through imprudence, sometimes are corrupted by evil examples, and sometimes are oppressed by the greatest number of the wicked and crafty. And although to the nature of men two distinguished gifts, the faculty of reason and of speech, have been divinely granted, which were to be used for contemplating and celebrating the Maker of this universe and for preserving and aiding the community of men among themselves, we see them turned by most people to almost no other use than to deceive and harm more easily, and to cause devastation. Is not life for the most part lived in such a way that, just as wild beasts in solitude and forests, fishes in the flood [index: entries preserved]
A
Moreover, there is not one single method of description in the manuscript codices of Zonaras' *Annals*, at least if one considers the arguments of the matters treated therein, which in some of them are placed in the margins, or sometimes, when new material is begun, as titles in the very context itself. And surely, regarding those marginal notes, they are not always the same in all the exemplars in which they are found, nor are they written in similar diction. Furthermore, in some codices, they occur more frequently and copiously than in others, while in some they occur at longer or shorter intervals. Finally, in other and older codices, they are almost never present at all.
Leo Allatius writes in his *Diatriba de Georgiis*, where he discusses Cedrenus [read Scylitza, ch. 27], that there exists in the Sforza library a large codex bearing the name of George Scylitza, although it contains only the *Annals* of Zonaras. But he adds that among the Palatine codices brought to Rome, he had seen a history of the same Zonaras that was mutilated at the beginning, starting from the monarchy of the Romans, in which, although there were notes distinct from the history, the name of George Scylitza was prefixed. B This, he says, differs from the published Zonaras, because it exhibits summaries of the chapters divided into sections throughout. "But of these summaries," the same Allatius adds, "is this Scylitza the author? Or does the author of the history invent or feign them, whether through his own fraud or the negligence of the scribes?" Whence it is entirely permissible to conjecture that these arguments of matters are not by Zonaras himself, both because they are often read as conceived in different words, and because, as I have touched upon, they are attached variously to the margins of the codices—elsewhere, indeed, more rarely, and elsewhere attached to almost every period. How useless this is, is evident from the fact that it is far better to read what is briefly described in the context than in the arguments, since they always consist of almost the same words.
Such as they were and in whatever manner Hieronymus Wolf had found them in his own codices, he caused them to be edited in the inner margin of his edition or next to the Greek column; and since they did not seem of such great importance, he omitted their interpretation, with other shorter Latin notes inscribed likewise in the other column, which would from time to time admonish the reader about the arguments of the matters. We have included most of these in this Royal edition, having rejected others for certain reasons, and also so that, if the margins of the books were darkened by such frequent arguments, the beauty and majesty of the Royal edition might not be defiled. C And indeed, this was the reason why it did not seem advisable to relegate those Greek arguments to the inner margins, as Wolf had done: both because those in the Royal editions have generally not admitted such notes heretofore, and because they are not useless—for when placed appropriately, they perform exactly the same function as the Latin. Nevertheless, so that we may not seem to defraud the reader of the Greek arguments, we have reprinted them here, in some places more complete than in the manuscript codices, and arranged according to the numbers of the books and sections, so that they may serve as indices or summaries of the matters described by Zonaras in the *Annals*.
Furthermore, it is in the reader's interest that I disclose what has been added to this latest and strictly Royal edition of the *Annals* of Joannes Zonaras. We have compared the Greek, especially in those places which presented some doubt, with four Royal codices and one Colbertine codex. Two of the Royal ones [1714, 12th cent., and 1716, 15th cent.] contain the complete *Annals*, except that one of these [1716] is mutilated by two leaves at the beginning; a third [1718, 14th cent.] contains the second part of the *Annals*; the fourth [1718, 15th cent.], finally, and it is written in a more recent hand, contains the same *Annals* from the reign of Diocletian to Alexius. The Colbertine codex (28), of sufficiently good note and also mutilated at the beginning by a few pages, ends at section 54 of book XII of this edition, namely, at the reign of Maximianus and Licinius. D We have from time to time recorded various readings excerpted from these codices in the Notes, with some which seemed beyond controversy inserted into the context itself. We have occasionally and less frequently corrected the Latin version of Hieronymus Wolf, especially in those places where he had not entirely grasped the author's meaning—which we almost always indicate in the Notes; but we have changed mainly that part where Byzantine affairs are treated, where he seemed to have rendered the palatine or ecclesiastical dignities less fittingly. Finally, we have subjoined our Annotations to the *Annals*, along with a *Dissertation on the Hebdomon* and some additions to our *Christian Constantinople*, regarding all of which we warn the reader at the beginning of each study.
Finally, we subjoin to the *Annals* of Joannes Zonaras a short *Chronicon*, though perhaps of lesser weight, which contains a certain summary of the times from Adam to Alexius Comnenus, which he treats; some things of this kind are found in the handwritten codices of the Royal library, which, however, do not entirely agree everywhere in the characterization of the years with that which we are editing—owing, I believe, more to the negligence of the scribes than of those by whom they were composed. Yet, in choosing to prefer this one to the others, I was influenced by the authority of Dionysius Petavius, a man most versed in chronological as in other disciplines, by whom it was first edited along with the *Historical Breviary* of the patriarch Nicephorus: which, since it was omitted in the Royal edition of the same writer, it seemed good to propose here again, especially because, as we have mentioned, it covers the same years as Zonaras, namely from the creation of the world down to the same Alexius.
But before an end is imposed on this Preface, it is fitting that we subjoin, as we promised above, an index of the other works of Zonaras whose memory has reached us, so that even from that the reader may realize how singular was the man's learning and piety. And so that we may begin from those already published: there occurs first the *Commentary on the Canons of the Apostles and the Councils* (29) and on the *Canonical Epistles* (30), whose title...
(whose, for instance, can satisfy everyone?), yet his effort is A excellent and his design praiseworthy, of establishing a sort of systematic discipline of history, and of bringing together its scattered members and parts from very many volumes into one single body, having employed such moderation that, like a tasteful rather than an extravagant host, he served up the best rather than the most, and did not dismiss his guests with disgust, but left them so affected that, as they say Timotheus remarked of Plato, his feasts might provide delight even on the following day. For he did not choose for himself the histories of all nations, but only those of the principal ones, nor even all of those, but only the most important ones or those which seemed likely to contribute to an understanding of the sequence of the Church, according to his own judgment and plan. Whether this satisfied or did not satisfy everyone, he will have this in common with many, and that with very few writers, if indeed with any at all. Yet I am in good hope that there will be more who will eagerly accept and read this work with grateful minds than there will be of those who will despise or slander it. But whose, among men or gods, can escape the complaints and stings of the morose and the detractors? To whom B nothing pleases, unless it is what they themselves have done: and not even they themselves are everywhere pleased with their own work, otherwise they would not approve and disapprove of different things at different times. I do not deny that Zonaras may appear more prolix in other places, as in Jewish history, and more brief in the events of foreign nations. In which, if any fault has been committed, he seems to have this excuse: that he did not derive what he wrote from his own invention, but gathered it from various authors and brought it into a certain order; which authors are very different from one another. But as for the fact that he did not pursue everything, perhaps he did so not out of negligence but by design. For to describe the deeds of all nations and cities is an immense and indeed an infinite task, to say nothing of the fact that it is not always fruitful. And I am near saying that, in such vastness of the globe, it is no more useful or necessary than if one were to strive to learn the actions of all the houses in a very large city. To be ignorant of notable, rare, and exquisite things that in some part involve us is shameful: to pursue every single thing is a matter of curiosity rather than erudition. If geographers, who profess to hold the shape of the whole earth in their minds, are permitted to be ignorant of many great parts of the globe, why should the same not be granted with indulgence in history as well? Now, as far as the elocution is concerned, speeches, stratagems, counsels, and events recur in almost the same way everywhere. For who does not know that neighboring peoples usually contend over boundaries, that there are certain causes or pretexts for wars and sudden occasions, and different counsels, opinions, and outcomes? As that author says, and in another place: The reheated cabbage kills the wretched teachers, Whatever men do, prayer, fear, anger, pleasure, Joys, the farrago of our little book. Since these things are so, and since, as the Philosopher is witness, individual things are infinite and cannot be enclosed in any limits of science, it is enough to know the principal things among them (I speak of men who are occupied) and to grasp the order of times and deeds in the mind. To which matter our Zonaras will bring no small amount of help, having begun from the foundation of the world and proceeded down to his own age, that is, for more than 400 years from then. In which he was obliged to repeat the first cradle, so to speak, of historical events from Sacred Letters, Josephus, and other ancient writers. Which to us, if Moses had not existed, would be entirely unknown: whom our religion teaches us to believe as if divinely instructed, although philosophy opposes it. Be that as it may, we have no C author more ancient or more certain than him. For Jewish history is as it were the foundation or principle of all others: and the destiny of that people is quite wondrous, such that having wandered through almost the entire globe, amidst the highest hatreds and oppositions of foreign nations, it has yet defended its own opinions with a marvelous persistence or constancy, and defends them even today, and has drawn many into its own opinion. Nothing of the sort is seen in other peoples: whose histories are touched upon only incidentally, with the oracles of Daniel and other prophets even being inserted and explained, as for instance the Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman. Although he dedicated a special volume to these, which I have distinguished into two parts, and separated the Christian emperors from the pagan ones, so that the whole work might be tripartite. Thus far concerning its subject matter. Now something must also be said about the author’s style, who, since it is not of one kind and form, but varies according to the variety of the authors from whom these things were taken, and he himself also varies, especially in the last volume, in which age the Greek language as well as the Latin degenerated, learned men will desire something, and I myself have desired something: first, the parsimony of the Demosthenic oratory, which was far more pleasing to my palate and not only more pleasant but also easier to translate: although to others it may seem difficult, and superior to my own insignificance. For in this author there are many, or at least they seem so to me, D *perissologiai*, which, while they may become the Greek style often wantonly playing with its own special genius, were, if I am not much mistaken, going to be troublesome to much more severe Latin ears. And for that reason, where it could be done without detriment to the sentence, they have been omitted by me in some places. And since I have done this not so much by my own will as at the advice of most learned men, Joachim Camerarius and Ludovicus Carinus, I trust I shall easily be approved by learned men. But the judgments of the ignorant and of detractors, which are either none at all or perverse, I despise, nor do I value them more than the bite of a flea on an Indian elephant. For smiths must handle smith’s work, nor should sickles be rashly thrust into another’s harvest. To everyone is granted a provocation from envy and ignorance to equity and erudition. I claim the same right for myself, where it seemed either fitting or necessary, and I have not infrequently permitted myself in dialogues to reduce them to continuous narrative, so that proper names and certain pronouns and the verb "he says" and other such things would not have to be inculcated to the point of nausea. For who would not prefer
is conceived as follows in the Royal manuscripts: *Explanation of the holy and divine canons of the holy and venerable apostles and of the holy ecumenical councils, as well as of the other holy Fathers, composed by John the monk, Zonaras, who was grand droungarios of the watch and protoasecretis*. Furthermore, in the Preface to this work, he says that he undertook it not of his own accord but at the persuasion of another, perhaps the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, as we shall say below: *Let no one censure me for rashness; for I do not approach this work of my own volition, but being requested, I have submitted and have given myself to the labor so that I might not be condemned for disobedience.*
*A Discourse against those who deem the natural emission of the semen a defilement.* It is published in the *Jus Graeco-Romanum* [tom. I, p. 351–361 and in Enimundus Bonefidius’ *Jus Orientale*, p. 11, p. 216, 237.]
*John the monk, Zonaras, on behalf of the high priests, concerning the fact that two first cousins should not be joined in marriage* (51). Edited by the learned John Baptista Cotelerius, tom. II [p. 883] of his *Monumenta Ecclesiastica Graeca*.
It is praised by Petrus Lambecius in book III of the *Bibliotheca Caesarea*, page 39, along with a *Commentary on the Resurrection Canons of St. John Damascene* by the same Zonaras and Nicetas of Thessalonica, under this title: *Exposition of the resurrection canons of the Damascene, by John the ascetic, Zonaras, who was grand droungarios of the watch and protoasecretis*, the beginning of which is conceived in these words: *Since the present work is an interpretation of the canons, it is necessary for us to philosophize also about the name of the 'canon' itself, and the designation of the irmos and the ode, and furthermore even of the troparion (for from these the canon is fashioned).* But the title of the latter exposition is: *This explanation of the resurrection canons of the first and second, as far as the 6th ode, was made by the most holy metropolitan of Thessalonica, the lord Nicetas, from Zonaras himself*, etc. Zonaras on the resurrection canons of Damascene is likewise praised by Allatius in his *Syntagma on the writings of the Georgians*, page 417, from which Jacob Gretzer published some fragments at the beginning of book V of his *De sancta cruce*: and a most beautiful *Exposition on the Octateuch* of the same John Damascene [is praised] by the same Allatius in his *Symmikta*, page 453.
There is preserved in the Royal Library: *Canon to the most holy Theotokos, by John the monk and protoasecretis Zonaras, the acrostic of which is: THE LAST TONE WEAVES THE LAST MELODY* [published in Jo. Bapt. Cotelerius’ *Ecclesia Graeca Monumenta*, tom. III, p. 465-472]. Subjoined to this are the *twelve katabasiai verses of Nicephorus, patrician and anthypatos of Mitylene, according to the number of the 12 months. Month of September*, etc.
Furthermore, four short works of Zonaras are praised by Leo Allatius in his *Diatribe on the Simeons*, namely: *A Discourse on the Veneration of the Cross*, beginning: *Someone put a question to me regarding matters of the spirit. But since even while being sober...* *Life of St. Silvester*, beginning: *The venerable and God-seeing apostles.* This is therefore a different Life of the same St. Silvester from that edited by Combefis, the beginning of which is conceived differently. *Commentary on the Meeting of the Lord (Hypapante)*, beginning: *Again a festival for the pious, and again another mystery.* Finally, *On Sophronius of Jerusalem*, beginning: *Those who compose encomia for the divine and blessed Fathers.*
There is also praised by Lambecius, book V *De bibl. Caesar.*, page 150, another short work of Zonaras, under this title: *On the Dormition of the most holy Theotokos, from the letter of John Zonaras: That even the just are often, when they depart from these things, granted visions of the saints and are made hearers of divine hymns in the heavens*, etc. But this letter is among those which also circulate under the name of Glycas; of which we shall speak shortly.
The same Lambecius writes in book IV that there are preserved in the same Caesarean library the *Paraphrases* of some anonymous author on the 33 poems of St. Gregory Nazianzen, concerning whose author it is not yet clear, says the same Lambecius, unless they are by Nicetas David of Paphlagonia, whom David Hoeschelius calls the bishop of Dadybra (52), whose *Commentary on the Tetrasticha and Monosticha of St. Gregory Nazianzen* translated into Latin was published by Hercules Phaellus in the year 1588. B Or rather [they are by] John Zonaras, who not only illuminated the *Tetrasticha* of St. Gregory Nazianzen with his commentaries and paraphrases, but also many other ancient monuments, partly of the same kind and partly of a different kind. See page 39 and 247 of the same book IV (33).
Furthermore, the *Lexicon* of the same Zonaras is praised, of which Joseph Scaliger speaks thus in a letter to Isaac Casaubon, which is number 48 among the published Scaligeriana: *"I also seem to myself not unprofitably to handle the Lexicon of Zonaras, which is in the books of your father-in-law (Henrici Stephani), if a brief usage of it should fall to me by myself and through your relative Paul Stephanus."* [Edited by I. A. H. Tittmann, Leipzig 1808, 2 vols. in-4, but I very much doubt the authorship.]
(31) From the Royal codex 2058. (32) In the *Bibliotheca Augustana*, p. 46. (33) The *Prooimion of the Commentary on St. Gregory Nazianzen’s Tetrasticha* is edited in the book inscribed: *INTERPRETATION BY NICETAS THE PHILOSOPHER, WHO IS ALSO DAVID, OF THE TETRASTICHA OF THE GREAT FATHER GREGORY NAZIANZEN. THE SAME’S INTERPRETATION OF THE MONOSTICHA. THE SAME’S PARAPHRASE OF THE EPIGRAMS ON THE GREAT BASIL. EPIGRAMS OF JOHN THE GEOMETER*, Venice, printing of Franc. Zamelus 1565, in-4.
A to return to the stone quarries with Aristoxenus than to hear the same cuckoo song so many times? For just as the Greeks, whether because of the many short and convenient connecting particles, or because of the multitude of participles which have a past-tense signification, or even for other reasons which it would be tedious to pursue here, are less averse to tautologies and perissologies, and pursue everything more minutely and curiously, so also he who wishes to imitate the same thing among the Latins, would he not fall into dreadful and inept verbosity? Those, therefore, who accuse an interpreter of such intricacies of either negligence or bad faith, while he avoids them without any detriment to the meaning, reveal their own ignorance and lack of judgment, or a sickness of mind and a desire to malign for no reason at all. Nor, however, have I indulged myself too greatly. For what Plato says, that he who responds in a debate must follow the footsteps of the questioner, I have considered should be done even more by an interpreter of a foreign language. But if the writer whom you have undertaken to explain has followed a straight path—that is, if he has combined the excellence of the subject matter with elegance of diction—the interpreter receives less labor and more praise; if, however, his speech is thorny and contains matters of no great importance, the interpreter is also compelled to suffer the punishment for another's fault. For, as Sophocles affirms in a different sense, there can be no beautiful commemoration of evil things, and it is scarcely granted to change their order and arrangement. Therefore, although the Latin speech of the interpreter may be pure, the composition itself sounds somewhat B horrid and harsh, with its limbs and parts cohering little better than sand without lime. Those who wish to escape these faults usually fall into another that is more serious, in that while they strive intensely to polish and adorn their speech, they wander far from the author's meaning and bind themselves with the very grave crime of perfidy. Having acutely perceived these difficulties, that man of supreme genius and learning, Joannes Jovianus Pontanus, wrote excellently that he would prefer that everyone bring his own things rather than offer those of others; and what he wrote, he himself did in explaining the doctrine of morals and celestial matters, having taken material from philosophers and astrologers, which he could arrange and adorn at his own discretion. But I, impeded both by the slenderness of my talent and by other inconveniences, am neither able nor would I dare to imitate the example of such a great man, especially in this genre of writing. It was enough for me to weigh the sentiments in good faith and to use diction that was as little harsh or barbaric as the author himself and the poverty of my own speech would allow. And yet, I have not satisfied myself everywhere, and I have counted it as part of my misfortune that I have not chanced upon a more brilliant author. Not that I would find fault with him; but I fear that I myself might be reproached by others, who seek nothing but a flower of diction, which surely has no place in the brevity of annals. Do you seek the richness of Livy? Then the wealth of speech will be combined with a poverty of facts. Do you demand diligence in pursuing every most minute detail? But then the history will grow to an immense volume, and it will no longer be a compendium, but a waste or rather a theft. For whoever is delighted by the prolixity of volumes should read histories, not epitomes. If he remembers them all, it is well; if not, let him use Zonaras as an index and guide; and let him consider that nothing is entirely blessed in every respect, and let him weigh the knowledge of a multitude of various things in one volume, not all that large, against the inconveniences of style, if there are any. This reason also moved me, so that I would not rest before this stone, which I have rolled for this whole year, had finally reached the summit of the mountain and come to a halt, with great labor indeed and many sweats, whatever the final outcome might be. For, to pass over the miseries of the translation itself, how much difficulty there was in the reading strictly due to those characters—elegant indeed, but very difficult to read because of those affected scribal abbreviations and the C study of calligraphy, from which sprout infinite errors due to the easy mutation of signs: these, while they are not dissimilar in some places, have a most diverse force. Whence it happened that, just as Plutarch professes to have acquired Latin words from his knowledge of things, so I have often been forced to divine variations of an edition from the sense and construction, a method clearly backwards. For words are and have been invented as marks of things, and letters as marks of words. Nor yet could I have extricated myself everywhere by this skill, had not more codices been furnished to me. Three of these I received from your library, acquired at great expense in Constantinople through the work and industry of that outstanding man, who, through his prudence and long travels—distinguished by that much usage of things, in the manner of Ulysses—was Joannis Dernschwam, who wrote these words on the front of that most ancient codex: "The Chronicle of Joannis Zonaras, divided into two volumes, the first of which encompasses Jewish history, mainly from the beginning of the world to the destruction of Jerusalem, the other the deeds of the emperors, both Greeks and Romans, up to the death of Alexios Komnenos: in the year of our Lord 1554, in Constantinople at Pera or Galata (which they think was once called Kerai or the Horn), I bought it for 150 Hungarian ducats from the magnificent lord Antonio Cantacuzeno, whose family, while the Byzantine state stood, was imperial, [but] now under the Turkish dominion has been reduced to a private condition: and by him I was requested that this work should one day be printed, and that a copy of the printed codex should be made for him for the sake of preserving Zonaras. Furthermore, I purchased the second volume of Zonaras concerning the emperors for the sake of comparison from Alexander the chartophylax for thirty Hungarian ducats. Likewise, I had another small book of Zonaras concerning the affairs of the empire and the Church from Constantine up to the emperor Justinian transcribed from an ancient codex." Thus far he. The fourth codex, which began from Constantine the Great, was provided by the most amply stocked library of that most distinguished man, my lord and patron, Joannes Jacobus Fugger, with all its ornaments. Finally, beyond all my hope and expectation, there arrived the complete codex from the Viennese library, provided spontaneously through the singular kindness of that most renowned man and royal senator, the lord Gaspar a Nydprug, etc.: which, in its entirety, with the help of Jeremias Martius, a youth of excellent character (whose skillful and faithful help I have used in transcribing this work, both in Greek and Latin), I collated and corrected many lacunae in our codex. And if in any place both together did not satisfy, the others...
A Finally, Joannes Pontanus, in his Preface to the history of Joannes Cantacuzenus, makes note of poems by Joannes Zonaras concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit, which he observes were translated into the Latin tongue by Genebrardus. Although I have sought them with sufficient diligence in almost all libraries, I have found neither them nor been able to learn from the learned men of this city where and in which volume of Genebrardus they were published (34). Further, Pontanus says: "That Zonaras was a schismatic can be testified to by his very sharp poems on the procession of the Holy Spirit, and others composed against the Latins, which poems Genebrardus, while translating them, narrates that he omitted those accusations." These very words of Pontanus were transcribed by Allatius in *Creygtonum* (35).
B Indeed, besides the above-praised works of Joannes Zonaras, there circulate everywhere in libraries 56 dogmatic epistles containing an explanation of the more obscure passages of Sacred Scripture, the series and arguments of which Petrus Lambecius has described (36); some codices ascribe these indeed to Joannes Zonaras, others to Michael Glycas, so that hitherto it remains uncertain to which they belong: although Leo Allatius seems to concede to the opinion (37) of attributing them to Glycas rather than to Zonaras, where he writes thus: "These and others Michael Glycas, in an epistle sufficiently prolix to Joannes the monk, etc." Casaubon also writes in his *Exercitationes in Baronium* (16, n. 49) that he had read an epistle of his on this same matter, but published under the name of Zonaras, which ancient codices represent as being by Glycas. To whom, indeed, those epistles which appear in manuscripts under the name of Glycas and the name of Zonaras belong, will be the subject of another discourse. Would that a dissertation existed on this difficulty by most learned men, and ones most skilled in the library of the ancients, which might have relieved us of this investigation.
C Certainly, the Royal codex ascribes these to Zonaras, but it is written by a more recent hand, namely in the year of the world according to the Greeks 6996 (Christ of 1488), Indiction 6, with this title: *Epistles of the lord Joannes Zonaras, also Protosynkrites and Droungarios of the Watch*. Moreover, this codex [n. 5015] contains only 45 epistles, the first of which is inscribed to Joannes the Sinaite; the penultimate one, however, which is 38 in the Lambecian index, seems to be that of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, written, namely, as the inscription declares: *To the most honorable monk, the lord Alypios the Recluse: If one ought to hold mathematical science to be entirely adverse*. The beginning of it is: "The matters of mathematics," etc. And it ends in these words: "From all these things, therefore, learn, O holy head, that fate and birth are utterly forbidden, for God formed man rational and possessing free will according to His image; for we shall not agree to be subject to natural necessities; but that a certain prognostic power has been granted to men, as the discourse has already indicated—not so much [is this the case] for the reason we have spoken, even if we are not permitted by the holy Fathers to busy ourselves with these things, because we do not employ them according to right reason."
D An *Antapologeticum* of this epistle follows in the Royal codex and in the Lambecian Index, which ascribe this entirely to Manuel, with this title: *An Antapologetic response in part to the writing entrusted to him by our mighty and holy lord Emperor Manuel Comnenus, which was released to a certain monk who had found not a little fault with him regarding the study of astrology, and who was contending to establish such a study by means of natural and scriptural proofs*. Indeed, the beginning of it is conceived in these words: "I dare to recall the letter of your majesty which has already come into our hands. And at first, having read it, I embraced it and kissed it warmly. For what reason? Because with a truly all-holy and calm voice, in imitation of Him who said, 'Learn from me, for I am meek and humble in heart,' he made to that very person the response, the one who so thoughtlessly cried out against your God-deprived power. But after this, I admired that letter for the roughness and rhythm of its words, and for the depth and density of its thoughts. Into which thoughts, and I know not how, having fallen, it was to be handed over before being throttled to perfection," etc. We transcribe other parts of this same epistle in our *Notes on Zonaras*, where we discuss the astronomer Vectius Valens, who lived during the reign of Constantine the Great. At the end, however, these things are added: "I am persuaded, therefore, also of this, O mighty Emperor, that that monk would never cease accusing the study, if the witnesses brought against it are to such an extent easily refuted." At the end finally of the Royal codex are described the names of those whose authorities were used by the writer of the epistles: *The writers and co-witnesses of the book are: Gregory the Theologian, the great Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Joannes Chrysostom, the great Athanasius, Cyril, the great Epiphanius, Anastasius the Sinaite, Joannes Damascenus, Gregory the Dialogist, Andrew of Crete, Peter and Paul the apostles, Nicephorus the patriarch, with these also Moses and David, and who is the one enlightening these and the truthful witness, the Holy Spirit*. Bonaventura Vulcanius published some of these epistles in his notes on St. Cyril *Against the Anthropomorphites*, from a codex which Georgius Douza had brought from Constantinople, transcribed by a recent and little-trusted hand, as he himself testifies, which bore the name of Joannes Zonaras. Furthermore, these epistles are ascribed to Zonaras in the Index of Greek books from the Royal manuscript codex 2813. Truly, two Imperial codices, which Lambecius praises (38), the former of which contains 50 epistles, the latter 56, prefer Michael Glycas as the author, with this lemma: *Of the most wise and most learned lord Michael Glycas on the questions of Divine Scripture*. They are also praised by Gesner under the name of Glycas, as well as by Heschelius from the Augsburg library under the same title, and by Jacobus Pontanus, who published the first two in Latin. But also at the end of
A some might say, the ether—and were composed for ostentation, to demonstrate the skill these men possessed in writing. For this reason, they interspersed their work with public speeches, and used a style that was more digressive or even more rhetorical. With some, ambition even culminated in dialogue; so that when they wrote about certain people who held errant and heterodox opinions concerning right dogma, they would enter into B discourse with them as though they were present, refuting their evil doctrines and bringing forward charges from Holy Scripture, or arguing against the Jews and showing them to be willfully malicious if they did not accept our mystery, using prophetic testimonies. Again, they would stand against the Hellenes, bringing their own contests into the middle, mocking their myths, and producing their own writings to refute their error. It is thus also a matter of uttering maxims and moralizing.
These things, most of those who read these historical writings—not to say all C perhaps—considered tiresome and superfluous, as they require much leisure; and even if some of those who undertake to read history have that leisure, it turns out to be a vain effort to spend time on these long narratives concerning battle arrays, wars, the ordering of armies, and other such things that usually escape the memory. As for the public speeches and discussions, they are of no use to those who come to the matters being recounted. For what benefit, they said, will anyone gain from knowing what a demagogue D said to the people? Or a general to the soldiers? Or what that emperor said to the envoys of the Persians, or another to those of the Celts, or Scythians, or perhaps those from Egypt, or those from the Daci and Triballi? Or what someone else spoke before the senate, or what another addressed to the common crowd? They said that such historical writings, having been expanded, looked toward vainglory. On the other hand, others were opposed to these, complaining that those who wrote history with brevity defrauded the reader of the knowledge of necessary things: sometimes omitting, or at least only briefly touching upon, the deeds of outstanding men, which deserved to be celebrated with divine praises; nor did they declare what their character, their nature, or their purpose was, nor how each of those who ruled attained the kingdom, nor who he was before that, nor from what ancestors he sprang. They added that some of these writings were far too unadorned and sometimes consisted of barbaric dictation, with rough composition and plebeian words; whence it happened that learned men shrank from reading them.
Often, therefore, by saying these things and finding fault with the historical writings in this way, they urged me to take the books into my hands and to omit both those things which, because of their length, the memory could not contain, and those which had no utility; and, having reduced the long narrative into a compendium, to produce a brief history, [one] which [might convey] facts and things more worthy of remembrance than
PREFACE
of the later Caesarean codex these things are written: "This book belongs to Michael Glycas." But Allatius indiscriminately praises these epistles under the name of Zonaras or Glycas, lib. II, *De consensu utriusque Ecclesiae*, cap. 18, n. 17; lib. III, cap. 15, n. 8, cap. 16, n. 24; cap. 18, n. 8, and against Creygton A (39). In which places, indeed, he transcribed certain of them in their entirety, so that, when he was writing, it was not altogether held by him as beyond doubt to whom they belonged. It is certain, however, that their author lived under Manuel Comnenus, both from the *Antapologeticus* which we have mentioned, and from the principal men of the Constantinopolitan court to whom several are inscribed—among them John Ducas, grand hetairiarch and sebast, whose mention occurs above others, to pass over the rest, in Nicetas (40), and Manuel Comnenus the sebastocrator, who is none other than he whom Cinnamus also remembers (41).
But when Glycas lived, it is not easy to gather from his History; although we gather that he was later than Zonaras, or certainly wrote after Zonaras, from the fact that he praises his *Annals* more than once (42). Whence it is not lacking that some conjecture he was much later. Nor, indeed, can the age of John Zonaras be clearly discerned from his *Annals* or from other works published to date, except that he himself appears to indicate that he prolonged his life after the reign of John Comnenus, and thus lived while Manuel was emperor, by whom, I think, he and Theodore Balsamon—then nomophylax and chartophylax of the Great Church of Constantinople, later Patriarch of Antioch—were chosen to examine the sacred canons and to interpret what obscure matters occurred in them, or to observe what might seem to conflict in some degree with the laws; which Balsamon himself testifies in his Preface to the explanation of the *Nomocanon*. And this can indeed be referred to Zonaras himself, who reveals that he did not write his *Commentaries* on the canons of his own accord, but by the order of another, as we observed above, yet in such a way that Zonaras issued his before Balsamon, by whom he is praised more than once and with an encomium. B From which one may at least gather that Zonaras lived under Manuel, and indeed Glycas himself, if these are his epistles about which we are speaking; which the method of writing that he employs in the *Annals* certainly seems to persuade, where he is occupied with sacred Scripture rather than with illustrating history. Moreover, in them he attacks astronomers and those who attribute whatever happens on earth to the movements of the stars, such that he makes out, "some to be fornicators, others, on the other hand, adulterers, and others murderers and thieves" (45); which is also expressed in almost the same words in the *Antapologeticus* which we mentioned above: although he may admit, as does the author of the *Antapologeticus*, that we can conjecture many things that will come to pass from the affections of the stars and heavenly signs. From this, however, it is not altogether concluded that Michael Glycas is the author of the epistolary works about which we speak, since such an opinion regarding the influence of the stars is trivial and common to everyone, and belongs indeed to Zonaras himself, who writes in the *Annals* (44) that God created the stars so that the circumference of the earth might be illuminated by them and the measure of time might be sought from their circuits, not that all our affairs should be whirled about along with the movement of the stars. But now, that the Emperor Manuel bestowed more care than was fitting upon astronomy, and took the trifles of astrologers for oracles, Nicetas testifies in more than one place in his *Life* (45). It is, therefore, no wonder that he should have confirmed his own opinion in the letter to the monk with so many authorities of sacred Scripture and the Fathers, since he is said by Cinnamus (46) to have been well instructed in divine as well as human letters, and held in high repute in war, and to have worshipped Mars and Mercury together and at the same time: so that what Calpurnius (47) sang of the Emperor Carinus could be applied to Manuel:
*However, we beheld him from afar,* *And, if my sight has not deceived me,* *I thought him to possess the countenance of Mars and Apollo in one.*
TO THE READER
The following admonition was prefixed to the historical Notes of Du Cange, which we have brought back from the end of volume II and placed beneath the text.—*Editor.*
Such are those which especially look to general history, just as are the *Annals* of Zonaras which we are now reprinting, so that they should by no means be illustrated by more diffuse commentaries: for whoever would propose to himself to do this would fatigue the reader with useless and superfluous observations rather than relieve him with any labor. For such is the method of this kind of writing, that those things which are plucked from authors are merely touched upon, nor are they composed with a fuller discourse. A continuous series of events, and digested according to more certain notes of time, is what is attended to most of all in them, so that it is necessary for him who seeks more lengthy narrations to consult the sources themselves; since the principal purpose of those who write annals is that by a certain universal [summary of] things...
A nor let anyone censure the discourse or me, its author. For since I must aggregate this history, as it were, from many books, I must in many places use the diction and composition of those writers. If, however, I should interject or insert anything of my own, the style will be adapted to the form of the author I am following, so that the writing may not appear discordant with itself.
III. But before I enter upon the history itself, let me state more summarily what things are to be narrated, so that those who encounter this work may know how many and how extremely necessary histories they are going to learn. B Contained, therefore, in this Compendium are the first eight books of the Scriptures, and what is narrated in them; likewise the books of Kings, and the Chronicles, and whatever is found in the Antiquities of the Hebrew Josephus, or is related by older writers—either more copiously or slightly differently than they did—and the books of Ezra, and the captivities of the Hebrews. The first of these occurred in the time of the ten tribes under the Assyrian Salmanassar, who captured Samaria and the nation under siege, and after leading them away beyond the Euphrates and settling them there, he transported certain nations into Samaria who were called Cuthæans. Then followed the captivity brought upon Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and how the city became a desert, and the temple was burned, and the whole nation was enslaved. C And how, after seventy years, according to the oracles of the prophets, it was granted to the people by Cyrus, who had overthrown the Assyrian kingdom, to return to Jerusalem and to raise up the city and renovate the temple; and who Cyrus was, and how he overthrew the Assyrian kingdom, and which persons held the kingdom after him, and how and by whom the building of the city was hindered, and by whose order its erection was again permitted. Also, regarding the prophet Daniel, and how he interpreted the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, and the vision of Balthasar, when that barbarian saw the fingers of a hand writing upon the wall, and regarding certain other visions of the prophet: all these things are recounted with a condensed explanation. Regarding the three youths, and the miracles performed by God either upon them or through them; regarding Esther, and how she averted the destruction of the Hebrew race; D regarding Judith, who through guile slew Holofernes and delivered his army to destruction; and regarding Tobias, how he was struck with blindness, reduced from wealth to extreme poverty, and then, because of his benevolence, recovered his sight by the providence of God and received an abundance of riches. Furthermore, the affairs of Alexander of Macedon are here summarized, mention of whom had to be made not only for other reasons, but because after the first defeat of Darius at Issus, he had traveled to Jerusalem and bestowed the highest honor upon the high priest; as also how he overthrew the Persian kingdom, how long he reigned, and how after his death the empire was divided into four kingdoms; what the Jews suffered from Antiochus Epiphanius, one of the posterity of Alexander’s successors, how the Asamoneans resisted them, and delivered their own people from his tyranny; who they were, in what manner, and when
to instruct the reader's mind. A Thus, it was Zonaras's primary aim, as Wolf truly says in his Preface, to establish a certain discipline as it were for history, and to bring together into one single body its members and parts, which were scattered in many places. For he chose for himself not the histories of all nations, but of the principal ones: nor indeed all of those, but only the principal ones, or those which seemed to contribute to an understanding of the course of the Church. In this exposition, therefore, of so many events and matters which the *Annals* comprise—which relate the origins of the world and the histories of the Old Testament, which Zonaras reports from the sacred Books and from Josephus and George Syncellus, or Greek matters, or even Roman ones, whether looking to the times of the republic or of the empire—if he had wished to compare them with these, and to confirm with the authority of those who treated each singly and professedly what he himself had omitted to bring forward on purpose, he would have incurred two drawbacks: that he would say too much and yet not everything, to use the words of Quintilian. It must be admitted, however, that there occur at times in them many things that need a critical hand; for in the narration itself, or in the nomenclature of persons or places, and even in the facts themselves, they depart from the authentic ones, and it is in the reader's interest to be admonished of these things. There are, besides, some things that can be adorned by exotic locations, since writers often lend one another light; this we have done to the best of our ability in the notes which we publish here for the present, especially in those matters that conduce to the illustration of Byzantine history, since we are publishing these *Annals* to be added to the other writers of Byzantine history hitherto expressed in royal types. For as I compared with Zonaras himself Theophanes and his continuators, or those who, like Zonaras, brought the *Annals* from the foundation of the world to their own times by a perhaps different method—George Cedrenus, George Hamartolus, Symeon Logothetes, John Scylitzes, Constantine Manasses, Michael Glycas, Joel, and others of this kind—it would have seemed completely absurd, since it is quite enough and to spare if matters that are outside common usage, or left untouched by others, are referred to the notes, from which light may somehow shine upon the writer. B Indeed, since I had previously published continuous commentaries on the whole of Byzantine history, so to speak, or those which could be appropriate for its individual writers—in two volumes, of which one embraces the *Augustan and Dalmatian Families*, together with a description of the city of Constantinople, and the other a *Glossary of Middle and Late Greek*, in which not only semi-barbarous (μῑξοβάρβαρα) words, but also palatine, military, ecclesiastical, and monastic dignities are explained—it remained only for me to consider that the facts themselves could be illustrated. This, indeed, has been performed by me in such a way that if anything had been overlooked in the aforementioned researches, I would note it down from time to time, and that often from unpublished writers, so that the reader might not suffer a loss either by our negligence orby a lapse of memory. But we also occasionally insert various readings from manuscripts described by Zonaras's hand, which it was our fortune to see, omitting in the meantime synonyms as being of no use, which the translator Wolf also professes to have done; whose notes, otherwise, which were placed beneath the previous edition, we have taken care to edit in their proper places with our own, indicated by the initial letter W, having omitted certain useless ones. And these, indeed, especially concern the former part of the *Annals*, and the second part up to Constantine the Great, where he seemed slightly more accurate than in those matters which were subjoined to the history of the Byzantine emperors, in which it is clear he was less knowledgeable, which he himself also ingenuously acknowledges; just as Xylander, in his notes to Cedrenus, in almost every place that concerns Byzantine affairs, is not only forced to hesitate, but confesses outright that the meanings of words unfamiliar to him—partly hybrid and μιξοβάρβαρα (semi-barbarous), partly entirely unknown and unread elsewhere among both the Latins and the Greeks—are unknown to him. Which is not altogether to be wondered at, since at that time there were almost no writers of Byzantine history edited, and among those who were, no one of the many learned men had devoted his studies to illustrating them until now.
PREFACE OF HIERONYMUS WOLF TO THE ANNALS OF JOHN ZONARAS
To the magnificent and generous man, D. Antonius Fugger, Lord of Kirchberg and Weissenhorn, Councilor to His Imperial Majesty, etc.
This work of the histories of John Zonaras, a man in his own time most illustrious in the Constantinopolitan empire, which has long been desired by many a most learned man, seems to be worthy of recommendation for two reasons in particular: both on account of the breadth and variety of the matters contained therein, and on account of its brevity, which is pleasant and most suitable for men who are occupied in public or domestic affairs or more serious studies, or for those whose memory is weaker. For it is not convenient for everyone to unroll all the writers...
they took A charge of the nation, and how after the return to Jerusalem from the captivity under the Assyrians, the Jewish nation was not ruled by kings, but by the high priests; and that the descendants of the aforementioned Asamoneans, when they were invested with the high-priestly honor and were guiding B the affairs of the nation, also set the diadem upon themselves; and how, when Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, the brothers, had disagreed concerning the Jewish kingdom, Magnus Pompeius, who was at that time the general of the Romans, having been invited to settle the dispute for those who were of the same blood, took the city of Jerusalem and subjected the nation to the Romans; and how Herod, the son of Antipater, after these events obtained the kingdom of the Jews; who he was, and whence he was descended, and all the things that happened to him at home, and until when those of his line held the kingdom, and in what manner, and from what time the governors were sent from Rome to Judea; and what Josephus wrote concerning our Savior Jesus Christ; but also concerning John the Baptist, and for what reasons the Jews revolted from the obedience to the Romans, and how their nation was warred upon by the Romans, and by whom Jerusalem was taken, and how it was despoiled in its final destruction, from which it had no recovery.
IV. Regarding the Romans and Rome
C IV. Since I have made mention of the Romans and of Rome, it seemed necessary to me also to write and relate these things: whence the Roman nation is, and from whom it had its beginning, and by whom the region of Italy was inhabited of old; from whence Romulus was brought into the light, he who became the founder of Rome, and how Remus his brother was slain, and then he also ceased to be among mortals; and how this city was first ruled by kings, and what customs and laws it used; and how Tarquinius Superbus, having changed the kingship into a tyranny, was expelled, and how many and what kind of wars Rome endured because of his D overthrow; and how the affairs were transferred for the Romans to an aristocracy, and afterwards to a democracy, with consuls and dictators, and then also tribunes, taking charge of the management of public affairs; and what the consulship of old was, and what the dictatorship, and what was the work of the censors, and how much time was fixed for each of these offices; and what kind of triumph there was among them, and from whence this name was derived; and whatever was done in the times of the consuls, even if not everything, by reason of the scarcity of books that relate these matters. And how, later, the rule fell for the Romans into a monarchy; and how first Gaius Julius Caesar, though not purely, managed these things, and then, after he had been slain upon the tribunal by those who were concerned for liberty, Augustus, Octavius Ca-
of history and to be ignorant of the chief events of the greatest empires from the beginning of the world, as far as has been granted to our mortality, up to this age is most shameful. For if, as Cicero says, this is the greatest difference between man and beast—that the beast is moved only by what is perceived by the senses, accommodating itself only to what is present and at hand, sensing the past or future but little, whereas man, because he is a partaker of reason, discerns consequences, sees the principles and causes of things, and is not ignorant of their progress and, as it were, their antecedents, compares similarities, and joins and connects future things to present ones, easily seeing the course of his whole life and preparing the necessary things for living it—then he is hardly worthy of the name of man who does not progress in memory and thought beyond his own age. And the foreknowledge of future things, if such there be, is believed to be a gift of the divine rather than of human intellect: although there are not wanting those who, whether incited by nature, aided by art, or taught by the usage of things, predict those things which are to happen long after. This faculty would indeed be more widely spread and much more illustrious if these three things were combined in one man; but ignorance of past things in a man even moderately schooled in letters has hardly any excuse. For we cannot complain here, as we can in the other, of the difficulty of the subject or the weakness of our nature; but rather, supine negligence, or superfluous occupation, or the empty pursuit of pleasure bears all the blame. For who among all mortals is so overwhelmed by business that, if he were a sparing and prudent steward of his most precious and irreparable treasure of time, he could not daily devote an hour or two to reading and meditating without any harm to his health or his own affairs? For we see with what trifles—not to say anything graver—time is wasted by most, time which would be far more rightly devoted to the study of wisdom. Nor without reason does that most serious man Seneca exclaim that a great part of life slips away from those doing nothing, a greater part from those doing evil, and the whole from those doing something else, and that it happens on this account that we are ignorant of necessary things because we have learned superfluous ones. By superfluous he understands the immoderate pursuit of pleasures, honors, power, and money; but by necessary, philosophy, that is, the knowledge of human and divine things: which, if it were to fall to any mortal in perfection, the eyes and minds of all would undoubtedly be turned to that one man as to some god. Now, because many boast of the empty name, but very few are so behaved as right reason demands, it happens that the thing itself is not understood by the common people, and the name is held in as much hatred as it is in ridicule. And I do not know how rightly that is. For neither is a discipline or a way of life justly traduced because of men’s ignorance or perversity; and those who judge so severely would not even approve of themselves, unless they were affected by an error of mind. For they are men like the rest, and subject to the same affections: and it is little noble to attack this or that flaw while hiding virtues, of which, in philosophers, not the least is the study of inquiring after truth and of moderating desires, so that they may be restrained within the prescript of nature, and in the same way, for their own part, of producing as many as possible. But to demand that they cast themselves below all the lowest men and live in extreme filth after the fashion of the Cynics is a matter of immense ignorance and pride. But I return to history, which, since it is a certain coarser kind of philosophy, and instructs civil and private life by examples rather than by reasons, there is no doubt that it has great utility conjoined with the highest sweetness. Regarding what is chiefly to be observed in it, Livy wisely admonishes in these words: "Let each one for himself diligently apply his mind to those things: what the life, what the morals were; by what men and by what arts, both at home and in war, the empire was gained and increased. Then, as discipline gradually slipped away, let him follow in mind how the morals first diverged, then how they fell more and more, until they began to go headlong, until it has come to these times in which we cannot endure either our vices or their remedies. This is what is especially healthy and fruitful in the knowledge of things, that you view documentation of every example placed in a clear monument: from it you may take for yourself and your republic what to imitate, and from it what to avoid." Thus far he. But also Cicero, besides saying that "not to know what happened before you were born is to be a boy forever," adorns history with great praises when he calls it the witness of times, the light of truth, the life of memory, the mistress of life, the messenger of antiquity. Though I do not deny that these things are true (nor can the fabulous reports of certain men corrupt the thing itself), yet if we judge the councils, deeds, and events of all ages for the most part, what is history other than a kind of vast sea, or rather a miserable shipwreck of human folly, wickedness, and misery, and a mirror far more illustrious of private and political life than any comedy or tragedy? This thought has perpetually crossed my senses and mind in the working out of this work. For whether sacred or profane, whether new or old things occurred, whether Hebrew or Greek were treated, I saw the same cabbage being repeated, the same ditty being sung: all things full of errors, crimes, frauds, lies, deceits, hardships, dissensions, murders, destructions. As the thing itself abundantly teaches, human nature is depraved from its very birth, nor is the divine curse meaningless, since everywhere the sweat of the brow, everywhere thorns and thistles, everywhere the snares of the serpent appear. Valid and simple men are few: and if there are any, they sometimes fall into crime through imprudence, sometimes are corrupted by bad examples, sometimes are oppressed by the greatest number of the wicked and crafty. And although the two noble gifts of nature were conceded to men by the divine—the faculty of reason and of speech—by which they ought to have been used to contemplate and celebrate the Maker of this universe, and to protect and assist the community of men among themselves, we see them converted by most to almost no other use than to deceive and harm more easily, and to bring about devastation. Is it not that for the most part men live in such a way that, just as wild beasts in solitude and forests, fishes in the rivers
I. I must take the beginning of this work from the ineffable first principle, the cause of all things, destitute of beginning and of time, and from those things which were produced by Him from nothing so that they might exist, and which derived their nature and origin from Him. A God, therefore, was always, shining forth beyond every cause and power, timeless, moving eternally with the majesty of His own glory and splendor, and without beginning. He did not come into being from some other previously existent substance, nor was He later created spontaneously from non-existence, nor did He progress little by little toward the completion of His own glory; but He ever is and remains, as only that most holy Spirit knows in a transcendent way—He who searches all the depths of the Godhead and rejoices and exults in these things everlastingly. B And since, out of supreme goodness, a sea of mercy, and ineffable kindness, He determined to form this visible world, and thence to bring into the midst the world which is second in terms of fashioning, but first and extraordinary in terms of grace—insofar as it is fashioned according to the image of God—I mean, of course, man; and having used the best way for the creation, He first brought into being the immaterial Powers and heavenly C Centurions, having conceived them simply, with the thought moving into action faster than a word. God is a nature wanting in nothing, sufficient unto Himself for glory and perception, neither desiring glory from others nor capable of being perceived by another—unless one should say that what is infinite and incomprehensible is capable of being perceived. And when I say God, I mean the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit—which is the Godhead, according to the great Father Theodore the Theologian. D Since the Divine is in this state, He first created the angelic heavenly powers as ministers and singers of the glory on high, not as though He were in need of them, but so that He might not be moved solely in the contemplation of Himself, but that the good might extend and progress, and benevolence might reach out to more—for this is the nature of supreme goodness. Then He also brought into being this visible world, which consists of matter. And in the beginning He made the heaven and the earth. But when the earth was hidden (for there was darkness, and water covered its surface), God brought forth light, and separated the light and the darkness. And the one He called day, but the darkness He named night; and to the beginning of it He attributed the name of evening, and to the first radiance of the day, morning. Thus from evening and morning, one day came into being. Truly, I know that in the *Leptē Genesis*
A and sea, and birds in those immense spaces of the air, for the most part, by a kind of law of nature, the stronger oppress and devour the weaker, so also in our own race, the most cunning and the most powerful turn the weakness and simplicity of others to their own prey, sometimes even without gain—nay, why do I say gain? I say, even to their own peril and inconvenience, they harm others; and when they do so, they boast as if they had done something well. Meanwhile, theologians preach about the righteous judgment of God, about the rewards of the pious, and about the punishments of the wicked; while they themselves, like those earth-born brothers of old, strike one another with the sharp daggers of an embittered tongue, and propagate the same disease in the minds of their hearers, so that it might not unjustly be doubted whether... but one must restrain the pen, lest I myself fall into the same vice. Philosophers give precepts concerning duties, and yet they themselves often depart from duty. Nor is there anywhere more injustice than where there is most law, nor more illness than in the abundance of remedies, nowhere more poverty than in the greatest wealth, nowhere more madness than in the firm persuasion of wisdom. Which wisdom, indeed, rests upon I know not how firm foundations of inveterate custom, of opinion received from ancestors, and of the authority of masters. Hence those infinite dissensions of religions, of doctrines, of morals, of institutions, and on account of the diversity of opinions (a most trifling matter), fatal enmities, pernicious seditions, and most ferocious wars. Amidst these things, some rage, some groan, some laugh, many weep, more are indignant, and most of all complain. There is no one who does not perceive and exaggerate the vices of others; but indeed almost no one, or certainly very few, sincerely and constantly amend their own: in which small flock I wish I could number myself! But I know not by what means we are all drawn more by examples than by discipline and reason, *καὶ τὸν ἐπιχώριον*, as Aristophanes says, *ἀσκοῦμεν τρόπον*. For few are gifted with such prudence or constancy of mind that they can fight against the vices and errors of their own times. Thus, as if by some fate, we rush headlong into vices, and from vices into calamities—which perhaps would be less numerous, or at least lighter, if we followed right reason and the remaining sparks of divine light in our nature through such great darkness of fortune as our most faithful guides. And if this were done, we would not so often accuse fate, like fools, and, like the blind, accuse blind fortune, nor would we veil our errors and vices with certain obscure names. Truly, there is no perfection of either wisdom or virtue on earth, and in vain is that man described to us who is, in Horace: One less than Jove: rich, Free, honored, fair, and finally the king of kings, Especially sound, or in Gellius *ἀκώλυτος, ἀνεκβίαστος, ἀπαρεμπόδιστος, ἐλεύθερος, εὔπορος, εὐδαίμων*. Such a man, as I suppose, no one has ever been, nor will be. For, as the satirist wittily adds, it is not only phlegm, but yellow and black bile that sometimes troubles all. B Would that this were seen less frequently in the words and deeds of the most excellent men! Otherwise, we would possess a doctrine of divine and human affairs that was more sound, less controversial, and much more direct, and the life of mortals would be weighed down by far fewer miseries. But that there is such folly and malice that, as if by design, we wish both ourselves and others to be miserable, this is indeed to be lamented. For what stands in the way, except for diseases and death (the former of which we heap upon ourselves by the intemperance of pleasures and lusts, and the latter we often summon, as if fleeing from it)? C Whence it is that we are in some way happy on earth, since divine benevolence provides everything necessary for food and sustenance liberally, provided we use them correctly and share them humanely. For plagues, indeed, and sterilities, earthquakes, droughts, inundations, and whatever other public evils of that kind exist, occur more rarely in the lifetime of a single man. But wars do not arise from any necessity of nature, but from men, and from their princes and kings—who ought to have excelled others in virtue and wisdom and rendered their citizens happy—from either ambition, or emulation, or avarice, or cruelty; and they drag with them a far greater mass of all evils than any necessity of nature has imposed upon us. But lest others deem us excused, princes could never stir up such great tumults unless the lower classes, laboring under the same diseases, offered themselves not only as ministers but even as leaders to their cravings: who, by fleeing from honest labor and desiring wicked leisure, do not fear to violate all divine and human laws, and rage with horrible fury and a ferocity more than beastly; and when they themselves are most wicked, they corrupt even good or at least mediocre minds, or they do not allow others to be quiet and tranquil. It is, in truth, a cruel and horrible thing, the empire of Mars, who rages with iron and fire; but a little milder is the tyranny of Mercury, who mixes everything up with false reasonings and cunning words, and usually provides the weapons which Mars then launches: most wicked demagogues, as they are called by the astrologers, and rather *κοσμοκράτορας* (world-rulers). For force and fraud, with justice and truth suppressed, generally hold power. And although this is so obvious that it would be desirable to be more obscure, yet I know not how by reading histories the mind is more moved and impelled to consider the tragic-comical or comical-tragical life of man, and its misery and vanity at the same time: which ought to incite us to seek with greater study and more ardent prayers the other life, promised to the pious by divinity, and while we are here, to also render us more diligent, more prudent, and more moderate. For it is generally certain that tragic events, of which histories are full, have arisen either from pride and ambition, or from negligence and rashness, or from the lust and injustice of the mind; yet very few, while they were fulfilling their duty, have erred. Of this matter our Zonaras sets forth in his work, in the final volume especially (without which, were it missing, we would for the most part be ignorant of the deeds of later emperors), nearly innumerable examples in a summary. In which, although others might desire other things
"The soul of every beast is its blood," A and blood is something essentially corruptible, which even by divine command was ordered to be cast away. But Scripture includes the bringing forth of living soul, with the command that the earth should produce it, so that in this way it might reveal the difference regarding the soul of man. For the soul of all other living creatures grew out of the earth according to the command; and being earthy, it might reasonably be considered corruptible, since Scripture says elsewhere: "The soul of every beast is its blood," and the blood is altogether a corruptible thing.
B II. But the earth did not produce the soul of man; rather, the Divine breathed it into Adam as an in-breathing. For this reason, it is believed to be a divine something, and immortal. The sixth of the days also held man, fashioned by the hand of God. For the Master-Artificer, having pre-established all things and brought forth the world in order and rhythm—whence it is also called *Cosmos* (world)—and having prepared it as if royal chambers for the reception of a king, brought forth man as a kind of king of those upon earth, to be ruled from above; and he did not provide him by a command, but fashioned him with his own hands, and made his creation not like the others, but distinct and incomparable.
For all other things were brought forth by a word, but he alone was deemed worthy of the Creator's own hands. For having taken dust from the earth, God—as the Book of Genesis says—formed man, and breathed into him a living soul, on account of which man is also said to be made C in the image of God. For certain of the qualities essentially belonging to the divine nature are imaged in the soul of man—not by nature, but by grace. For by nature the Divine is invisible, immortal, incomprehensible, and incorruptible. These things also attend the soul by grace, not by nature. For its nature and substance is neither comprehensible nor visible. And it is incorruptible and immortal, and other characteristics of the divine nature are beheld in the soul by grace.
And He called the one who had been fashioned, "Adam"—which signifies "ruddy" in the Hebrew dialect, as Josephus says, because he was fashioned from red earth; for such is virgin earth. Thus, having brought forth the world in six days, He rested on the seventh. Therefore, the seventh of the days has been deemed by the Hebrews to be one of rest. Wherefore it is also called the "Sabbath"; and "Sabbath," in the Hebrew language, means "rest." God placed Adam in the paradise which He Himself had planted, D where there was the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, or, according to Josephus, of wisdom. And He commanded him to partake of the rest, but to abstain from the tree of knowledge, and He foretold that death would be the penalty for the violation of the prohibition. The paradise is irrigated by a river, which, going out from there, is divided into four parts. The name of the first river is Phison, which signifies "multitude"; to the Greeks, this is the Ganges, which flows past India and empties into the sea. The second is called Geon, and this name declares him who
(for who can satisfy everyone?), his effort was nonetheless excellent and his design remarkable: to establish a certain discipline of history, as it were, and to gather into one single body its limbs and parts which were dispersed throughout many volumes. This he did with such moderation—like a refined rather than an overly lavish host—that he brought forth only what was best, not an excess of material, and did not dismiss his guests with loathing, but with such satisfaction that, as they say of Plato’s dinner parties, his feasts would have delighted them even the following day. For he chose for himself not the histories of all nations, but of the most important ones; and not even all of those, but only the most significant ones, or those which seemed relevant for understanding the sequence of the Church, according to his own counsel and judgment. Whether or not this pleases everyone, this will be something he shares with many—the latter with a very few writers, if I may say, with none at all. Yet I am in good hope that there will be more who will eagerly accept and read this work with grateful minds than those who will despise or slander it. But who among men or gods avoids the complaints and stings of surly detractors? To them, nothing is pleasing except what they have done themselves; indeed, even they are not everywhere satisfied with themselves—otherwise they would not be approving one thing at one time and disapproving another. I do not deny that Zonaras might seem at times more prolix, as in his Judaic history, and at other times more brief, as in the deeds of foreign nations. If any fault was committed in this, he seems to have this excuse: that he did not derive what he wrote from his own genius, but gathered it from various authors—who are very different from one another—and reduced it into a certain order. And that he did not follow through on everything, perhaps he did so not from negligence but on purpose. For to describe the deeds of all nations and cities is an immense and even infinite task, to say nothing of the fact that it is not always fruitful. Much lacks before I might say that, given the great vastness of the globe, this is no more useful or necessary than if someone were to study every household record in a massive city. To be ignorant of significant, rare, and exquisite things that touch upon us to some extent is shameful; to pursue every single detail belongs more to curiosity than to erudition. If geographers, who claim to hold the form of the entire earth, are permitted to be ignorant of many great parts of the world, why should the same not be granted with pardon to history? Now, as far as style is concerned, assemblies, stratagems, councils, and events recur almost everywhere. For who does not know that neighboring peoples usually fight over borders, that this is the cause or a certain pretext for wars and sudden occasions, and that there are different counsels, opinions, and events?
"Cabbage warmed up again is the death of tired masters,"
he says, and in another place:
"Whatever men do, prayer, fear, anger, pleasure, / Joys, the farrago of our little book."
Since such is the case, and according to the Philosopher, individual things are infinite and cannot be encompassed by any limits of knowledge, it is enough to know the most important of them (I am speaking of men who are busy) and to embrace in the mind the order of times and deeds. Our Zonaras will afford no little help in this matter, as he began from the creation of the world and proceeded down to his own age, that is, for more than 400 years ago. In this, he was forced to repeat the first, as it were, cradle of historical deeds from the Holy Scriptures and from Josephus and other ancient writers. These things, had they been without Moses, would clearly be unknown to us—to whom our religion, although philosophy may oppose it, teaches and compels us to believe by divine instruction. Be that as it may, we have no author more ancient or more certain. For Jewish history is like the foundation or the beginning of all the others, and there is a kind of wondrous fate for that nation: although it has wandered through almost the entire world, and although it is met with the utmost hatred and opposition of foreign peoples, yet it has defended its own opinions—whether with stubbornness or constancy—and defends them even today, and has drawn many into its own way of thinking. Nothing of the sort is seen in other peoples, whose histories are touched upon only incidentally when the oracles of Daniel and other prophets are inserted and explained, such as the Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman. Yet he has dedicated a special volume to these, which I have divided into two parts, and I have separated Christian emperors from the pagans, so that the entire work might be tripartite. So much for his subject matter. Now something must also be said about the author’s style, for since it is not of one kind or form, but varies with the variety of authors from whom these things were culled, he himself also varies, especially in the last volume—the age in which both the Greek and Roman tongues degenerated—where learned men will find something to be desired. I myself desired something: first, the parsimony of Demosthenic oratory, which was far more agreeable to my palate and not only more pleasant but also easier to translate, even if to others it appears difficult and above my own modest abilities. For in this author there are many—or at least they seem to me to be—*perissologiai* [redundancies], which, although they might suit the Greek language often playfully wanton in its own particular genius, would, if I am not much mistaken, have been quite annoying to much more severe Latin ears. For that reason, where it could be done without detriment to the meaning, they have been omitted by me in some places. And since I have done this not so much by my own inclination as by the admonition of most learned men, Joachim Camerarius and Ludovici Carini, I trust I shall easily be approved by learned men. But the judgments of the unskilled and the detractors, which are either null or perverse, I despise, and I value them no more than an Indian elephant values the bite of a flea. For smiths must handle a smith's tools, and one must not rashly thrust a sickle into another’s harvest. A challenge from envy and ignorance to fairness and erudition is granted to all. I allow myself the same right where it has seemed to me either proper or necessary, and I have not rarely permitted myself to reduce dialogues into continuous narrative, lest proper names, certain pronouns, the word "he says," and other things of that nature be inculcated even to the point of loathing. For who would not prefer
A And the men, having multiplied, inclined toward wickedness, and there were born to them children, insolent and reckless on account of their trust in their own strength. With these the Divine was indignant and curtailed their longevity, limiting the life of men to one hundred and twenty years. Noah, however, found grace before God. Wherefore, when the dry land was transformed into a sea by a heavy and long-continued downpour, the entire human race perished. Noah alone was saved by the providence of God in a wooden ark, which he constructed four-square, having a length of three hundred cubits, a width of fifty, and a height of thirty. Into this he himself entered, with his children, his mother, and their wives, having also taken in seeds of all kinds and living creatures likewise from every genus, for the preservation of their kinds, two of the impure and seven of each genus of the clean. Noah was the tenth from Adam, and there had passed two thousand two hundred and forty-two years until the flood itself. And the cataracts of heaven being opened for forty days and nights, the water rose fifteen cubits higher than the mountains. But when the rain ceased and the water began to abate after one hundred and fifty days, the ark grounded on a certain mountain in Armenia in the seventh month. And Noah, having opened it, sent forth a raven, but it did not return. And after some days he sent forth a dove, and it returned. Seven days having passed, it was sent forth again, and it returned bearing an olive branch. From this he knew that the water had subsided from the earth. B And Noah and his wife, and his sons with their wives, went forth, and the animals which had been with them in the ark, and he sacrificed to God. Josephus says that the place is called *Apobatērion* (the Place of Descent) by the Armenians, and that remnants of the ark are shown there; and he says that many of those who have written barbaric histories—such as Berosus the Chaldean, and Hieronymus the Egyptian who wrote the Phoenician antiquities, and Mnaseas of Damascus—make mention of the flood and the ark. And God said that He would no more bring such a disaster upon the earth, and commanded them to use animals for food (though He forbade eating flesh with the blood of the soul), and to refrain from the slaughter of men. As a sign that the earth would never again be flooded by rain as it had been in the flood, He set the bow in the cloud, understanding the rainbow by the bow. Noah lived three hundred years after the flood, and died at the age of nine hundred and fifty years. Concerning the multitude of years in the life of the men of that age, Josephus says thus: "Let no one, considering this life and the brevity of years, deem false those things recorded about the ancients. For they, being pleasing to God C and created by God Himself, and because they used more suitable foods, lived for such a span of time. Another cause of their longevity was the utility of the things thought out by them, such as astronomy and geometry; which could not have been ascertained and explained with certainty by them had they not lived six hundred years, in which span the great year is completed." So much for him.
Let no one, therefore, in view of the present life and the brevity of years, deem false the things recorded about the ancients. For they, being pleasing to God and created by God Himself, and because they used more suitable foods, lived for such a span of time. D
to return to the stone quarries with Aristoxenus, than to listen to that same cuckoo song so many times? For just as the Greeks—whether on account of very many short and convenient connecting particles, or on account of the multitude of participles which have a past-tense meaning, or even for other reasons which it would take too long to pursue here—are less averse to tautologies and prolixity, and pursue all things more minutely and curiously, so if one among the Latins were to wish to imitate the same, would he not fall into a horrendous and vapid loquacity? Those, therefore, who accuse an interpreter, who avoids such pitfalls without any detriment to the meaning, of either negligence or bad faith, betray either their own ignorance and lack of judgment, or a sickness of the soul and a lust for slandering without any cause. Nor, however, have I over-indulged myself. For as to what Plato says, that one who answers back in a disputation must follow the tracks of the questioner—that I have reflected must be done even more by one who interprets a foreign language. But if the writer whom you have undertaken to explain has kept to the straight path—that is, if he has combined the excellence of his material with the elegance of his diction—the interpreter receives less labor and more praise; but if his discourse is thorny and contains matters of no great importance, the interpreter is also compelled to suffer the penalties for another's fault. For, as Sophocles affirms in a different sense, there can be no beautiful commemoration of evil things, and it is hardly granted to change their order and arrangement. Therefore, though the Latin speech of the interpreter is pure, the composition itself sounds like something rough and harsh, with its members and parts holding together not much better than sand without lime. Those who wish to avoid these vices usually fall into another, graver one: so that while they study intensely to polish and adorn their speech, they wander far from the author's meaning and bind themselves with a very grave crime of perfidy. Having acutely perceived these inconveniences, that man of highest genius and learning, Joannes Jovianus Pontanus, wrote excellently that he preferred that each person brought his own material rather than offer another's; and what he wrote, he himself did in explaining the doctrine of morals and celestial matters, having sought material from philosophers and astrologers, which he would arrange and adorn according to his own judgment. But to imitate the example of such a great man, especially in this genre of writing, I am able neither to dare, hindered by both the meagerness of my genius and other inconveniences. It was enough for me to weigh the opinions in good faith, and to use a diction as little harsh or barbaric as the author himself and the poverty of my own speech would allow. Nor, however, have I satisfied myself everywhere, and I have counted it as part of my misfortune that I had not chanced upon a more brilliant author. Not that I reproach this one; but because I fear that I myself may be reproached by others who seek nothing but a flower of diction, which surely has no place in the brevity of annals. Do you seek the fruitfulness of Livy? But then the riches of speech will be coupled with the poverty of subject matter. Do you demand diligence in pursuing every little thing? But then the history will grow to an immense volume, and it will no longer be a summary, but a waste or rather a theft. For whoever is delighted by the prolixity of volumes, let him read histories, not epitomes. If he remembers all of them, it is well; if not, let him use Zonaras as an index and guide; and let him consider that nothing is happy in every respect, and let him weigh the knowledge of a multiplicity of various matters in one volume that is not altogether too large against the inconveniences of style, if there be any. This is the reason that also moved me not to rest before this stone, which I have rolled throughout this whole year, had finally come to a stop, having been carried to the summit of the mountain—yet with immense labor and many sweats, whatever the outcome. For to say nothing of the miseries of the conversion itself, what difficulty there was in the reading itself on account of those characters—elegant indeed, but most difficult to read because of those affected abbreviations of writing and the zeal for calligraphy, whence infinite errors arise from the easy mutation of marks; for, since they are not dissimilar in some places, they have a most diverse force. Whence it happened that, just as Plutarch professes to have acquired Latin words from the knowledge of things, so I have often been forced to divine concerning the variety of the reading from the sense and construction, by a method clearly preposterous. For words were invented for things, and letters for words. Nor, however, could I have extricated myself everywhere by this skill, had not more codices been provided for me. Three of these I received from your library, procured at great expense in Constantinople by the work and industry of an outstanding man whose prudence, acquired in long journeys after the example of Ulysses and much use of affairs, is renowned: Joannes Dernschwam, who wrote these words on the front of that most ancient codex: "The Chronicon of Joannes Zonaras, distinguished in two volumes, of which the former embraces the Jewish history primarily from the beginning of the world up to the destruction of Jerusalem, the latter the deeds of the emperors, both Greeks and Romans, up to the death of Alexius Comnenus: in the year of our Lord 1554, in Pera or Galata (which they think was once called Keras or Horn), I bought it for 150 Hungarian ducats from the magnificent Lord Antonio Cantacuzeno, whose family, while the Byzantine state stood, was imperial, but now under Turkish dominion has been reduced to a private condition: and by him I was asked that this work might at some time be printed, and that a copy of the printed codex might be made for him for the sake of the preservation of Zonaras. Furthermore, I procured the second volume of Zonaras concerning the emperors for the sake of comparison from Alexander the chartophylax for thirty Hungarian ducats. Likewise I arranged for another little book of Zonaras concerning matters of empire and Church from Constantine up to the Emperor Justinian to be transcribed from an ancient codex." So far he. A fourth codex, which began from Constantine the Great, was provided by the most instructed library of that most ample man, my lord and Maecenas, Joannes Jacobus Fugger, with all its adornments. Finally, beyond all my hope and expectation, there came the complete codex of the Viennese library, provided of its own accord by the singular kindness of that most illustrious man and royal senator, Lord Caspar von Nydprug, etc.: which I have collated in its entirety, with the assistance of Jeremias Martius, a youth of excellent character (whose skill and faithful work I used in transcribing this work in Greek and Latin), and I have filled the many gaps in our codex. And if in any place both the former and the latter were not satisfying, the remaining ones which I...
Furthermore, because of the utility of the things they devised, such as astronomy and geometry—which it was not possible for them to attain or describe accurately without having lived for six hundred years; for through such a span is the Great Year completed.
A Now, the sons of Noah—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—having moved their dwellings from the mountains into the plain, Noah, having planted a vineyard, drank of the wine, and became intoxicated, and was uncovered. Then Ham, having seen his father's nakedness, reported it to his brothers, as if mocking his father. But they, having placed a garment upon their backs, walked backward and covered their father's nakedness, approaching from behind and not looking at their father. Therefore, when Noah awoke, he rewarded the others with blessings, but cursed Ham. The plain in which the sons of Noah dwelt is called Sennaar. Since many children were born to each of them and they advanced into generations, their descendants multiplied. And Nimrod, a grandson of Ham, who was the first to appear as a giant on the earth, being bold and more vigorous in the strength of his hands than the others, turned affairs toward tyranny, and proposed to them the building of a tower constructed of baked brick. But God B cleverly thwarted their plans, declaring them unintelligible to one another through the division of languages. That plain is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of languages. For in Hebrew, *Babel* means confusion. They were scattered henceforth by the diversity of language, so as to fill every continent and island with themselves. When the descendants of Noah had been thus dispersed, nations were established and named from them. For Japheth begat seven sons, who went forth from the mountains of Taurus and Amanus, into Asia as far as the river Tanais, and into C Europe as far as Gades, by whose names the nations were also called. The Gomerites are from Gomer, who are now called Galatians; and Magog named those descended from him Magogians, but now they are called Scythians. From Javan came the Ionians, and all are called Greeks. From Madai came the Madai, who are now called Medes. Through Thobel, he named those from him Thobelians; these are the Iberians. But Mesoch began the lineage of the Mescheni; these are considered to be the Cappadocians. Thiras named those from him Thiras; they were renamed Thracians later. From the descendants of Japheth, the Aschanaxians, who are called the Rheginians, were propagated from Aschanax. The Riphathaeans—who were called Paphlagonians previously—are believed to draw their lineage from Riphath; and the Thorgamaeans subscribe to themselves Thorgama as their ancestor, who were renamed Phrygians later. From Elisan came the leader of the Alisaeans, who are the Aeolians. And Tarseus became the ancestor of the Tarseans; for of old the Cilicians were called Tarseans. Whence also the most notable of the cities among them D is called Tarsus, having been made by the change of one letter. For so Josephus writes concerning Tarsus. Others say that Perseus went into Cilicia, and while planning to build a city, as he was demonstrating the location of the city to the workmen, he struck the ground with the sole of his foot, and from there the city was named (for *tarsos* signifies "sole" in Latin). Cheti