an influential Patriarch of Constantinople and belonging to
the ninth century, has in his "Bibliotheca" a much longer notice,
which, however, contains almost nothing that a reader will not find in
Dio's own record. This is about the extent of the information afforded
us by antiquity, and modern biographers usually fall back upon the
author's own remarks regarding himself, as found scattered through his
Roman History. Such personal references were for the first time
carefully collected, systematically arranged, and discussed in the
edition of Reimar; subsequently the same matter was reprinted in the
fifth volume of the Dindorf Teubner text.

Just a word first in regard to the lost works with which Suidas
credits Dio. He probably never wrote the "Persia": perhaps it belonged
to Dio of Colophon, or possibly Suidas has confused _Dion_ with
_Deinon_. It is certain that he did not write "The Getae": this
composition was by his maternal grandfather, Dio of Prusa, and was the
fruit of exile. "Journey-signs" or "Itineraries" is an enigmatic
title, and the more cautious scholars forbear to venture an opinion
upon its significance. Bernhardy, editor of Suidas, says "Intelligo
_Librum de Signis_" and translates the title "De Ominibus inter
congrediendum." Leonhard Schmitz (in the rather antiquated _Smith_)
thinks it means "Itineraries" and that Dio Chrysostom very likely
wrote it, because he traveled considerably. Concerning "In Trajan's
Day" two opinions may be mentioned,--one, that the attribution of such
a title to Dio is a mistake (for, if true, he would have mentioned it
in his larger work): the other, that its substance was incorporated
in the larger work, and that it thereby lost its identity and
importance. The "Life of Arrian" is probably a fact. Arrian was a
fellow-countryman of Dio's and had a somewhat similar character and
career. It may be true, as Christ surmises, that this biography was a
youthful task or an essay of leisure, hastily thrown off in the midst
of other enterprises.

Coming to Dio's personality we have at the outset to decide how his
name shall be written. We must make sure of his proper designation
before we presume to talk about him. The choice lies between Dio
Cassius and Cassius Dio, and the former is the popular form of the
name, if it be permissible to speak of Dio at all as a "popular"
writer. The facts in the case, however, are simple. The Greek
arrangement is [Greek: Dion ho Kassios]. Now the