D. N. Le Nourry, O.S.B., Admonitio in subsequentes chronographias

Admonition on the Following Chronographies.

Among the various arguments treated by Clement of Alexandria in the first book of the Stromata, by no means the least is that whereby he demonstrates that Moses is the most ancient of all writers. And to persuade more effectively of this, he presents to us several chronographies drawn from diverse pagan authors whose names he either states or suppresses, whereby that antiquity of Moses is proved by their own testimony. Now since these chronographies, and very many other things which he thought should be added to them, are not clear and plain to many, in order to bring some light to them we believed that two things above all had to be performed by us.

First, indeed, we present all those chronologies, both of the pagan writers and of our Clement, in continuous order, and with all the years from the beginning of the world added which he had omitted. How difficult this was, those know well enough who have bestowed any labour on composing chronographies of this sort, or have put even the slightest study into examining them. And truly, for computing these years and reconciling them with those various chronologies of pagan authors differing not a little from one another, all the greater diligence and labour were needed inasmuch as scarcely a single point of time is assigned by Clement from which anything certain about them could be established. Wherefore, if in assigning these years of the world, and in reducing to their proper order and place all those small chronologies of pagan authors, or rather separate parts of chronology, we have erred anywhere, the kindly reader, as we suppose, will readily pardon us for it, and we shall most gladly suffer ourselves to be corrected and amended by him.

Secondly, because our Clement and other ancient writers of sacred chronography, followers of the Seventy-two translators of the Old Testament, very often disagree with one another, therefore, that everyone may more easily perceive wherein Clement himself differs from the others, besides the Clementine we exhibit two chronographies, namely those of Eusebius of Caesarea and of George Syncellus, who followed the same method of computation of the Seventy-two elders. Nor indeed is there any reason why anyone should wonder at their disagreements, seeing that those who boast that they adhere to the Hebrew text of the same Sacred Scripture disagree no less with one another.

Now we have selected the Chronicles of Eusebius and George Syncellus above the rest because both of them in those works cited the very chronology of our Clement more than once. For thence it is gathered with no uncertainty that both read it in such a way as to accept from it what they judged to be true, and reject what they judged false. Added to this, the authority of Eusebius and George Syncellus seems to most people to be of greater weight and moment than that of others. We are indeed not unaware that George's Chronography is defamed and proscribed by Scaliger as teeming everywhere with errors and faults. But in the new edition of it the learned Dominican Jacques Goar vindicated it from all the reproaches and revilings of Scaliger. And from this latest edition we have given it as emended by the same Goar and purged of the various faults of copyists and scribes. We were therefore persuaded that from the comparison of this threefold Chronography, rather than of others, it could be perceived by all what is well or ill written in the Clementine, what in it is to be rejected or admitted, and what usefulness and profit can be derived from it. For the rest, if anything in this our not a little troublesome and laborious work should please you, I would have you know that it is to be attributed not so much to us as to our colleague Jean Liron, who is even now hastening on to other studies, of which we shall one day give an account.