PROLEGOMENA.

We do not have a clearer understanding of where he wrote; for the fact that Pertz p. 30 (cf. p. 28) and Muellenhoff p. 7 and IX 182 say he wrote in Spain, and specifically here in Caesaraugusta modern Zaragoza, Spain, relies on quite flimsy reasoning. For that addition concerning the Spanish Caesaraugusta and other Caesareas (which I published on p. 54, note) is not found earlier than in the Palatine codex 1357 of the 13th century, which is of no significance, and which is similar to the Parisinus 4871 of the 11th century, in which those additions are not present (perhaps added by some medieval Spaniard; but even that is not certain). Regarding the agreement of those Spanish annals with recension B, where in both places Saturninus in his consulship of 735/19 referring to the Roman system of dating from the founding of the city is called the colleague of Cinna, I have explained on p. 22, note, what should be judged. I add only this: that the mention of Cinna is not from Honorius himself, but only from the other recension B, and furthermore, that my arguments exposed there are probable for this reason as well, that the Spanish annals almost everywhere show only the individual names of the consuls; wherefore if they add the name of Lucretius and indeed that of Cinna, they did not take this from their usual source but rather from our writer. We do not know, therefore, where Honorius wrote his sphere; one could think of Italy, which he perhaps passed over in silence for that reason, because he was intending to repeat it with a special description as his own homeland. But I do not wish to indulge in trivialities.

Besides the partition of the four oceans, about which see p. XXIV, no traces of the Christian religion are found; nor is the ancient cult of the gods mentioned.

Up to this point, we have described the earlier and genuine recension of Honorius, which I called A; we shall now pass to the other, propagated in quite many books, but now for the first time edited by us. This differs from the former in these more important matters: first, the narrative concerning the four measurers of the earth (p. 21—23, ed. m.) is placed before it, which, since it begins with the words 'Julius Caesar,' in its oldest books is titled by an easy error the whole work 'Cosmography of Julius Caesar' (or by corruption 'Chronicle of Julius Caesar'). Next, the numerical computations (in which if they found anything false, later scribes strove to correct them each by their own skill) were moved from the end of the book to the beginning, with the name of 'Excerpts' omitted. The final words of the book, which pertain to the sphere and to Honorius himself, are likewise omitted. In the cosmography itself, only a few things were omitted, but many were changed, and many were added. The additions for the most part (cf. p. 27, 33 all.) do not contain much of value. For instance, whereas A has the town of Ambiani modern Amiens on p. 35, 3; B has the same but adds Samarobriva the original Roman name for Amiens as if it were something else on p. 36, 1. And yet it is clearer than light that this recension is both after the one I called A and