to collect them in the silence of our own minds? What can I say then
about intentions, which are so hidden most of the time that they can
scarcely be discerned by the acuity of the inner man? Therefore we
should not be severely attacked if we stumble unknowingly in our
words; but relentless blame should be brought to bear when falsity is
willfully woven into the text, in an attempt to deceive, or out of a
desire to disguise something. Furthermore, the names of men,
provinces, and cities presented me with considerable difficulties; I
knew some of the familiar ones were written down incorrectly by this
author, and I do not doubt that in recording foreign, and therefore
less known, names, errors were also made. For example, we inveigh
every day against the Turks, and we call Khorasan[48] by its new name;
when the old word has been forgotten and has almost disappeared, no
use of ancient sources, even if they were available, has been made: I
have chosen to use no word unless it were in common use. Had I used
Parthians instead of Turks, as some have suggested, Caucasus and not
Khorasan, in the pursuit of authenticity, I might have been
misunderstood and laid myself open to the attacks of those who argue
about the proper names of provinces. In particular, since I have
observed that in our lands provinces have been given new names, we
should assume that the same changes take place in foreign lands. For
if what was once called Neustria is now called Normandy, and what was
once called Austrasia is now, because of a turn of events, called
Lotharingia, why should one not believe that the same thing happened
in the East? As some say, Egyptian Memphis is now called Babylon.
Instead of using different names, thereby becoming obscure or
participating in polemics, I have preferred to make use of the common
word. I was in doubt for a long time about the name of the bishop of
Puy, and learned it just before finishing this work, for it was not
in the text from which I was working. Please, my reader, knowing