In scholarship, Zeno far outdid Foresti, who was not above repeating the popular myth about the fall of Belisarius (already rejected by the sixteenth-century historian Crinitus). He also outdid the rest of the collaborators. Unlike them, he followed the Renaissance humanists in discarding the awkward Christianized version of the Book of Daniel's four-monarchy scheme, which divided universal history into the periods of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, distantly succeeded by the kingdom of heaven.
In scholarship, Zeno outshone Foresti, who occasionally repeated the popular myth about Belisarius's fall (already rejected by sixteenth-century historian Crinitus). He also excelled over his peers. Unlike them, he aligned with Renaissance humanists in discarding the awkwardly Christianized version of Daniel’s four-kingdom scheme, which divided world history into Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman periods, leading to the kingdom of heaven.