Most fruitful [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martyr Vermil Florentine, professor of divinity,…Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of deuinitie,…

And because I think I have spoken enough already of the matter and subject of this book. I will now go to declare the form of the writing thereof.¹ It consisteth altogether of an historical kind of writing, as may easily appear to all the readers. An history is (as Quintilianus writeth in the second book, & 4. chap: of his Institutions) a setting forth of a thing done. From which Augustine differeth not much, who writeth on the second chap: of Gen: upon the letter. An history is when a thing done either by god or by man is set forth, & in this definition he comprehendeth as well profane histories as holy. But our book doth chiefly for the most part set forth those things which were done by god. But because all setting forth of things done are not of one kind, when as some are called chronicles, & other some named histories, we must see in which of these two, this our declaration must be placed, & that can we not well do except we separate these the one from the other. Cicero in his 2. book de Oratore, touching these, writeth after this sort.² The grecians at the first wrote even as our Cato, Pictor & Piso did: for an history was nothing else but a collecting together of things done yearly, which things that they might the better be kept in memory the chief bishop from the beginning of matters of Rome even to Publius Mutius the chief bishop wrote all things that were done every year & brought them into a common place, & set them out on a table in his house that the people also might freely have knowledge of them, & they be they which are now called the great yearly Chronicles. This form of writing many have followed, which have without any deckings or ornaments left behind them only the monuments of times, men, places and of things done. Therefore as Pherceydes, Hellanicus, Acusilaus & very many other we amongst the grecians, so is our Cato, Pictor, & Piso, who cared not for the eloquent kind of writing, & while that men might understand what they spake, they counted shortness to be the only praise of speaking &c.

And bicause I think I haue spoken enough already of the matter and subiect of this boke. I wil now go to declare the forme of the writing therof.¹ It consisteth altogether of an historical kind of writing, as may easily appeare to al the readers. An historye is (as Quintilianus writeth in the second boke, & 4. chap: of hys Institutions) a setting forth of a thing done. From which Augustine differeth not much, who writeth on the second chap: of Gen: vpon the letter. An history is whē a thing done either by god or by mā is set forth, & in this diffinitiō he cōprehēdeth as wel prophane histories as holy. But our boke doth chiefly for the most part set forth those things which wer done by god. But bicause al setting forth of thīgs done are not of one kind, whē as som ar called chronicles, & other some named histories, we must se in which of these two, this our declaration must be placed, & that can we not wel do except we seperate these ye one from ye other. Cicero in his 2. boke de Oratore, touching these, writeth after this sort.