In preparing my translation, I consulted the following manuscripts. As far as I know, they are the only manuscripts of the Memorial currently available.

C Cambridge University, Or. 804. Italian, 17th–18th century.

J Jerusalem, Ben-Zvi Institute 2264. Italian, 18th–19th century.

L1 London, British Library Add. 26959. Italian, 17th–18th century. The manuscript is incomplete, and breaks off in the middle of the list of names on p. 55, ll. 2–13 of Freimann's edition of the text.

L2 London, British Library Add. 22096. Italian, 18th century.The manuscript was plainly copied by an ‘unbeliever’ (see below, on p. 43, l. 16), yet is a careful and faithful copy of the ‘second edition’ of the Memorial. The copyist's citation of Kitsur tsitsat novel tsevi (‘Epitome of “Zevi’s Fading Flower”’) practically guarantees a date after 1757.

M1 Moscow, Russian State Library, MS Günzberg 528. Italian, 18th century. The manuscript is incomplete; one page, corresponding to Freimann, p. 48, l. 9–p. 49, l. 27, is missing, and the scribe seems simply to have stopped writing after p. 50, l. 3.

M2 Moscow, Russian State Library, MS Gunzberg 1456. Italian, 18th–19th century.

N New York, Jewish Theological Seminary MS 3590. Italian, 18th century— written in a really beautiful formal hand.

O Oxford, Bodleian Library MS 2226 (Mich. 479). Italian, 18th century. This is the manuscript principally used by Freimann for his edition.

W1 Warsaw, Żydówski Instytut Historyczny LIV. Italian, 18th century. This and the following manuscript were originally in the library of the Jewish community (Israelitische Kultusgemeinde) of Vienna, from which they were loaned to Freimann by Abraham Epstein.6 They were brought to Warsaw after the Second World War. W1, like L2, represents the ‘second edition’ of the Memorial, and may possibly have been the source from which L2 was copied.

W2 Warsaw, ŻydówskiInstytut Historyczny LV. Italian, 18th century. The copyist was plainly an ‘unbeliever’ (see below, on p. 44, l. 27), who worked in a hasty and careless fashion throughout. The variants in this text are usually of no significance except when, as sometimes happens, there is specific reason to think they may preserve an authentic reading (e.g. p. 48, l. 6; cf. n. 54 on the translation).