regular Greek custom
is to place the gentile name, or even the praenomen, _after_ the
cognomen: but the regular Latin custom (and after all Dio has more of
the Roman in his makeup than of the Greek) is to observe the order
_praenomen_, _nomen_, _cognomen_. It is objected, first, that the
Greeks _sometimes_ followed the regular Latin order, and, second, that
the Romans _sometimes_ followed the regular Greek order (e.g., Cicero,
in his _Letters_). But the Greek exception cannot here make Dio the
_nomen_ and Cassius the _cognomen_: we _know_ that the historian
belonged to the gens Cassia (his father was Cassius Apronianus) and
that he took Dio as cognomen from his grandfather, Dio Chrysostom. And
the Latin exception simply offers us the alternative of following a
common usage or an uncommon usage. The real question is whether Dio
should be regarded rather as Greek or as Roman. To be logical, we must
say either Dion Kassios or Cassius Dio. Considering the historian's
times and his _habitat_, not merely his birthplace and literary
dialect, I must prefer Cassius Dio as his official appellation. Yet,
because the opposite arrangement has the sanction of usage, I deem it
desirable to employ as often as possible the unvexed single name
_Dio_.

Dio's praenomen is unknown, but he had still another cognomen,
Cocceianus, which he derived along with the _Dio_ from his maternal
grandfather. The latter, known as Dio of Prusa from his birthplace in
Bithynia, is renowned for his speeches, which contain perhaps more
philosophy than oratory and won for him from posterity the title of
Chrysostom,--"Golden Mouth." Dio of Prusa was exiled by the tyrant
Domitian, but recalled and showered with favors by the emperor
Cocceius Nerva (96-98 A.D.); from this patron he took the cognomen
mentioned, Cocceianus, which he handed down to his illustrious
grandson.

Besides this distinguished ancestor on his mother's side Dio the
historian had a father, Cassius Apronianus, of no mean importance. He
was a Roman senator and had been governor of Dalmatia and Cilicia; to
the latter post Dio bore his father company (Books 49, 36; 69, 1; 72,
7). The date of the historian's birth is determined approximately as
somewhere from 150 to 162 A.D., that is, during the last part of the
reign of Antoninus Pius or at the beginning of the reign of Marcus
Aurelius. The town where he first saw the light was Nicaea in Bithynia.

The careful education which the youth must h