Complete Works of Cassiodorus, Vol. I

We have indicated the pages of the edition and the index of locations by letter. Moreover, we have utilized both of those editions in such a way that, in more difficult passages and in other places corrupted either by the punctuation of copyists or the ignorance of orthographers, they have brought no small light to our corrections of the Tripartita The tripartite history; and finally, where they differed significantly from our own manuscript and edited codices, we have sometimes noted this in the margins of our text. In the same place, we have often added the years of the Christian era, corresponding to the Consuls noted in the Tripartita according to the Chronicle of Cassiodorus. The attentive reader will notice that we have calculated these—perhaps not with uncertain estimates—by always ascending from the year of Christ 514, when it is established that the Senator was made Consul.

Regarding the Chronicle.

We have given the third place in this volume to the Chronicle of our Senator, which he composed at the command of King Theodoric. Onuphrius Panuinus erupted with incredible wrath and indignation against this work of Cassiodorus, and Joseph Scaliger did not restrain his anger, nor did he inveigh against the Chronicles of the Senator with any less arrogance. They attack primarily those parts where the author adhered to the records of the Consuls from Tiberius Caesar up to Diocletian. But the same note of severe censure ought to be branded upon that great man Prosper and Victorius, to whom, as Bucherius says, the massive jumble of supplementary consuls from those times perhaps produced that confusion. Scaliger himself indicates another reason why the author deviated slightly from the true epochs, namely, that under the guidance of Eusebius, he made the consulship of Junius Brutus one full Olympiad earlier. But this lapse, even if it were certain and true, ought to have been pardoned without haughtiness, considering the man was most deserving of letters, burdened by greater cares, the Atlas of the entire Gothic Kingdom, and one who cited the most serious witnesses for his opinion. This is especially true when others, less distracted, sin more gravely without any damage to their reputation and without anyone blaming them. Furthermore, those very morose cavilers, Onuphrius and Scaliger, cannot deny that this Chronicle of the Senator satisfied the desires of many who recorded ecclesiastical and Roman imperial affairs in letters. Indeed, we see more often than not that they both used it in their own works, neither unwillingly nor unsuccessfully. Why, even the detractor Onuphrius himself admits, even if unwillingly, that Cassiodorus shone before him in many things. Why, finally, does Scaliger himself, although of the same indignation as Panuinus, acknowledge at length that our Senator studied Eusebius and Jerome so much that he seems not to have differed from them even in his words? But certainly, he did not have only them, although they are the best, as guides for his path. He also followed Titus Livius, Aufidius Bassus, and Paschalis—that is, as Bucherius says, the Paschal Canon of Victorius. He did not wish to leave anything fixed while omitting those or others who were preeminent at that time in structuring the calculation of time.

Commentary on the Paschal Canon, Chapter 13.

In the Notes to Eusebius, pages 96, 425.

In the Notes to Eusebius, page 9 and following.

Commentary on the Paschal Canon, Chapter 13.

Therefore, I more willingly agree with Baronius, Bucherius, and Juretus, who, having weighed the matter more maturely, believe the parachronisms should be imputed not to the author, but to the ignorance of the scribes. Nor will the learned subscribe to them reluctantly, as they cannot doubt anywhere how easily these chronological errors, which are often found in the transcribing of the names of the Consuls, creep in through the fault of either the typography or the copyists. Therefore, so that these might be amended as much as was permitted to us, we have delineated a new edition of the Chronicles of our Cassiodorus according to the standard of all the ancients. We have primarily adhered to Onuphrius and Cuspinianus, who testify that they saw the manuscript codices. And we have annotated all their readings in our margins, whenever they varied, so that nothing found in all other editions can be missed by the learned reader in ours. We have also added to these Chronicles the Computus Paschalis Paschal calculation/Easter table, concerning which we will speak briefly toward the end of the life of Cassiodorus the Senator.

Regarding the Paschal Calculation.

Regarding the Chronicles of Jornandes.

Cassiodorus had published the History of the Goths divided into twelve books, as will be established from the things to be said in his life. But by what fate it perished, no one could say; everyone must lament it. Only a synopsis of this history, so to speak, and a compendious reduction, which Jornandes (or Jordanus), Bishop of Ravenna, left to posterity, can alleviate this universal grief to some extent. Therefore, so that nothing of the works of Cassiodorus might escape our diligence, this volume will conclude with that brief and exquisite collection of the history of the Senator, which is inscribed concerning the origin and deeds of the Getae or Goths to Castalius. Now, in order that our edition of this Chronicle might be rendered authentic and cleaner than all others, we have used the one printed by Bonaventura Vulcanius among the Dutch, in which the whole work is distinguished very clearly by chapters, and the most accurate synopses of the chapters are exhibited. Having compared these with other editions, we have added the various readings and observations of Juretus, and the notes of B. Vulcanius himself.