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...